Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22303489›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2012

Melioidosis vaccines: a systematic review and appraisal of the potential to exploit biodefense vaccines for public health purposes.

Sharon J Peacock, Direk Limmathurotsakul, Yoel Lubell, Gavin C K W Koh, Lisa J White, Nicholas P J Day, Richard W Titball

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The double burden of diabetes and global infection in low and middle-income countries.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. LVS ΔmBio · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Prevention of melioidosis.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Human Melioidosis.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2020
    Review
  14. The Impact of Age and Sex on Mouse Models of Melioidosis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sharon J PeacockDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Direk Limmathurotsakul
Yoel Lubell
Gavin C K W Koh
Lisa J White
Nicholas P J Day
Richard W Titball
Mahidol University · THMahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit · THChurchill Hospital · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 089275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBurkholderia pseudomallei is a Category B select agent and the cause of melioidosis. Research funding for vaccine development has largely considered protection within the biothreat context, but the resulting vaccines could be applicable to populations who are at risk of naturally acquired melioidosis. Here, we discuss target populations for vaccination, consider the cost-benefit of different vaccination strategies and review potential vaccine candidates. METHODS AND

findingsMelioidosis is highly endemic in Thailand and northern Australia, where a biodefense vaccine might be adopted for public health purposes. A cost-effectiveness analysis model was developed, which showed that a vaccine could be a cost-effective intervention in Thailand, particularly if used in high-risk populations such as diabetics. Cost-effectiveness was observed in a model in which only partial immunity was assumed. The review systematically summarized all melioidosis vaccine candidates and studies in animal models that had evaluated their protectiveness. Possible candidates included live attenuated, whole cell killed, sub-unit, plasmid DNA and dendritic cell vaccines. Live attenuated vaccines were not considered favorably because of possible reversion to virulence and hypothetical risk of latent infection, while the other candidates need further development and evaluation. Melioidosis is acquired by skin inoculation, inhalation and ingestion, but routes of animal inoculation in most published studies to date do not reflect all of this. We found a lack of studies using diabetic models, which will be central to any evaluation of a melioidosis vaccine for natural infection since diabetes is the most important risk factor.

conclusionVaccines could represent one strand of a public health initiative to reduce the global incidence of melioidosis.

Indexed as

Biological Warfare AgentsAnimalsAustraliaBacterial VaccinesBioterrorismBurkholderia pseudomalleiCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease Models, AnimalHumansMelioidosisPublic HealthThailandBacterial VaccinesBiological Warfare Agents

Identifiers

PMID22303489
PMCPMC3269417
OpenAlexW2073543107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.