Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21880118›Full record

ReviewMicrobial biotechnology2012

Vaccination in the elderly.

Evelyna Derhovanessian, Graham Pawelec

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Microbial biotechnology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Evelyna DerhovanessianTübingen Ageing and Tumour Immunology Group, Center for Medical Research, University of Tübingen Medical School, Waldhörnlestr. 22, D-72072 Tübingen, Germany. evelyna.derhovanessian@klinikum.unituebingen.de
Graham Pawelec
In-Q-Tel · USUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a general consensus that the elderly do not respond as well to vaccination as the young, but robust studies are few and far between. Most refer to influenza vaccination, but even here, adequate immunological and clinical data are surprisingly thin on the ground. The meta-analysis by Goodwin et al. from 2006 is still the most comprehensive that we have. They reviewed 31 antibody response studies comparing influenza vaccination efficacy in groups of elderly and younger adults. They reported that the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of responses in elderly versus young adults ranged from 0.24 to 0.59 for the three influenza antigens used in the vaccines. They concluded that rather than the estimated 70-90% clinical vaccine efficacy in younger adults, this figure was only 17-53% in the elderly, depending on which viruses were prevalent that year. They stated that 'this highlights the need for more immunogenic vaccine formulations for the elderly'. How to achieve this? There are three areas where we may consider alterations to increase vaccine efficacy: (i) make the vaccine more potent; (ii) use adjuvants to enhance immunity; and (iii) apply immune modulators or other interventions to alter host immunity generally. We will consider these three options, focusing on influenza vaccination, in this mini-review.

Indexed as

AgedHumansImmunologic FactorsVaccinationVaccinesImmunologic FactorsVaccines

Identifiers

PMID21880118
PMCPMC3815782
OpenAlexW1536279718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.