Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21604985›Full record

ReviewExpert review of vaccines2011

Tuberculosis vaccines in clinical trials.

Rosalind Rowland, Helen McShane

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of vaccines, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Biotechnologia · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Efficacy of light chain 3-fused protein multi epitope in protection of mice challenged withVeterinary research forum : an international quarterly journal · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. An Update on Tuberculosis Vaccines.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Current trends in tuberculosis vaccine.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2019
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Rosalind RowlandThe Jenner Institute, Old Road Campus Research Building, Oxford University, Oxford, OX3 7DQ, UK.
Helen McShane

Funding

Wellcome Trust 076943
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective prophylactic and/or therapeutic vaccination is a key strategy for controlling the global TB epidemic. The partial effectiveness of the existing TB vaccine, bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG), suggests effective vaccination is possible and highlights the need for an improved vaccination strategy. Clinical trials are evaluating both modifications to the existing BCG immunization methods and also novel TB vaccines, designed to replace or boost BCG. Candidate vaccines in clinical development include live mycobacterial vaccines designed to replace BCG, subunit vaccines designed to boost BCG and therapeutic vaccines designed as an adjunct to chemotherapy. There is a great need for validated animal models, identification of immunological biomarkers of protection and field sites with the capacity for large-scale efficacy testing in order to develop and license a novel TB vaccine or regimen.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicDisease Models, AnimalHumansImmunotherapyTuberculosisTuberculosis VaccinesVaccinationBiomarkersTuberculosis Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID21604985
PMCPMC3409871

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.