ReviewIndian journal of medical microbiology2006
Rotavirus vaccines.
Review in Indian journal of medical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seasonality of Rotavirus Hospitalizations at Costa Rica's National Children's Hospital in 2010-2015.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Real-time RT-PCR assays to differentiate wild-type group A rotavirus strains from Rotarix(®) and RotaTeq(®) vaccine strains in stool samples.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2014Article
- Human rotavirus genotypes circulating in Brazil before and after a nationwide rotavirus vaccination program established in 2006.Research and reports in tropical medicine · 2011Review
- Outbreak of gastroenteritis in tibetan transit school, dharamshala, himachal pradesh, India, 2006.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2009Article
- Group A rotavirus gastroenteritis: post-vaccine era, genotypes and zoonotic transmission.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rotavirus, the most common cause of severe diarrhea and a leading cause of mortality in children, has been a priority target for vaccine development for the past several years. The first rotavirus vaccine licensed in the United States was withdrawn because of an association of the vaccine with intussusception. However, the need for a vaccine is greatest in the developing world, because the benefits of preventing deaths due to rotavirus disease are substantially greater than the risk of intussusception. Early vaccines were based on animal strains. More recently developed and licensed vaccines are either animal-human re-assortants or are based on human strains. In India, two candidate vaccines are in the development process, but have not yet reached efficacy trials. Many challenges regarding vaccine efficacy and safety remain. In addition to completing clinical evaluations of vaccines in development in settings with the highest disease burden and virus diversity, there is also a need to consider alternative vaccine development strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.