Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18195078›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of experimental medicine2008

The failed HIV Merck vaccine study: a step back or a launching point for future vaccine development?

Rafick-Pierre Sekaly

Open access · greenAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of experimental medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 216 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
216citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

216 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 394 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

156 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rafick-Pierre SekalyUniversité de Montréal, CR-CHUM, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale U743, Montréal, Québec H2X1P1, Canada. rafick-pierre.sekaly@umontreal.ca
Université de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The world of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccines has suffered a baffling setback. The first trial of a vaccine designed to elicit strong cellular immunity has shown no protection against infection. More alarmingly, the vaccine appeared to increase the rate of HIV infection in individuals with prior immunity against the adenovirus vector used in the vaccine. A new study in this issue suggests that a different vaccine approach-using a DNA prime/poxvirus boost strategy-induces polyfunctional immune responses to an HIV immunogen. The disappointing results of the recent vaccine trial suggest that a more thorough assessment of vaccine-induced immune responses is urgently needed, and that more emphasis should be placed on primate models before efficacy trials are undertaken.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDrug DesignAdenoviridaeAIDS VaccinesAnimalsDrug IndustryGene Products, tatGenetic VectorsHIV InfectionsHumanstat Gene Products, Human Immunodeficiency VirusTechnology, PharmaceuticalAIDS VaccinesGene Products, tathuman immunodeficiency virus type 1 Tat vaccinetat Gene Products, Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Identifiers

PMID18195078
PMCPMC2234358
OpenAlexW2163787552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.