Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22513932›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine versus separately administered DTP-HBV and HIB vaccines for primary prevention of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus influenzae B (HIB).

Edna S Bar-On, Elad Goldberg, Sarah Hellmann, Leonard Leibovici

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Needle size for vaccination procedures in children and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Characterization ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Vaccination of healthcare workers: A review.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2015
    Review
  15. Combination vaccines against diarrheal diseases.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2015
    Review
  16. Pertussis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2015
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edna S Bar-OnDepartment of Medicine E, Beilinson Hospital, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. baroned@013.net.il.
Elad Goldberg
Sarah Hellmann
Leonard Leibovici
Rabin Medical Center · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvantages to combining childhood vaccines include reducing the number of visits, injections and patient discomfort, increasing compliance and optimising prevention. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that routine infant immunisation programmes include a vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae) type B (HIB) in the combined diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP)-hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination. The effectiveness and safety of the combined vaccine should be carefully and systematically assessed to ensure its acceptability by the community.

objectivesTo compare the effectiveness of combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccines versus combined DTP-HBV and separate HIB vaccinations. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to week 1, November 2011), EMBASE (January 1990 to November 2011) and www.clinicaltrials.gov (up to April 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing vaccination with any combined DTP-HBV-HIB vaccine, with or without three types of inactivated polio virus (IPV) or concomitant oral polio vaccine (OPV) in any dose, preparation or time schedule, compared with separate vaccines or placebo, administered to infants up to two years old. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently inspected references identified by the searches and evaluated them against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included trials. MAIN

resultsData for the primary outcome (prevention of disease) were lacking. We performed a meta-analysis to pool the results of 20 studies with 5874 participants in an immunogenicity analysis and 5232 participants in the reactogenicity analysis. There were no data on clinical outcomes for the primary outcome (prevention of disease) and all studies used immunogenicity and reactogenicity (adverse events). The number of vaccine doses differed significantly between the studies. Heterogeneous interventions, study location, healthcare environment and combining research across disparate geographical locations, may have lead to bias. The risk of bias was unclear across most of the included studies. Comparisons found little heterogeneity. In two immunological responses the combined vaccine achieved lower responses than the separate vaccines for HIB and tetanus. No significant differences in immunogenicity were found for pertussis, diphtheria, polio and hepatitis B. Serious adverse events were comparable with mainly hospitalisation and acute bronchiolitis cases. Minor adverse events such as pain and redness were more common in children given the combined vaccine. Overall, the direction shown by the results is in favour of the DTPw (diptheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis)-HBV-HIB vaccine rather than the DTPa (diptheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis)-HBV-HIB vaccine when compared to the separate vaccines (size of effect: risk ratio (RR) 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 2.10, for 5269 participants). AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe could not conclude that the immune responses elicited by the combined vaccine were different from or equivalent to the separate vaccines. There was significantly less immunological response for HIB and tetanus and more local reactions in the combined injections. However, these differences rely mostly on one study each. Studies did not use an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and we were uncertain about the risk of bias in many of the studies. These results are therefore inconclusive. Studies addressing clinical end points whenever possible, using correct methodology and a large enough sample size should be conducted.

Indexed as

Child, PreschoolDiphtheriaDiphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis VaccineFemaleHaemophilus InfectionsHaemophilus VaccinesHepatitis BHepatitis B VaccinesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornTetanusVaccines, CombinedWhooping Coughdiphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis-Hib-hepatitis B vaccineDiphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis VaccineHaemophilus VaccinesHepatitis B VaccinesVaccines, Combined

Identifiers

PMID22513932
PMCPMC11440342
OpenAlexW2056646243

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.