Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19837292›Full record

ReviewVaccine2009

Smallpox vaccines for biodefense.

Richard B Kennedy, Inna Ovsyannikova, Gregory A Poland

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Monkeypox Virus Infections in Humans.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022
    Review
  10. COVID-19 Vaccinations: Medical, Ethical and Legal Aspects.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2022
    Review
  11. Prevention of monkeypox with vaccines: a rapid review.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. COVID-19 Compared to Other Pandemic Diseases.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Defending against smallpox: a focus on vaccines.Expert review of vaccines · 2016
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard B KennedyMayo Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN 55905, USA.
Inna Ovsyannikova
Gregory A Poland
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS N01 AI040065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Few diseases can match the enormous impact that smallpox has had on mankind. Its influence can be seen in the earliest recorded histories of ancient civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia. With fatality rates up to 30%, smallpox left its survivors with extensive scarring and other serious sequelae. It is estimated that smallpox killed 500 million people in the 19th and 20th centuries. Given the ongoing concerns regarding the use of variola as a biological weapon, this review will focus on the licensed vaccines as well as current research into next-generation vaccines to protect against smallpox and other poxviruses.

Indexed as

Biological WarfareBiological Warfare AgentsHumansSmallpoxSmallpox VaccineVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, InactivatedVaccines, SubunitBiological Warfare AgentsSmallpox VaccineVaccines, AttenuatedVaccines, InactivatedVaccines, Subunit

Identifiers

PMID19837292
PMCPMC2764553
OpenAlexW2029006292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.