ReviewBone marrow transplantation2013
Live (vaccines) from New York.
Review in Bone marrow transplantation, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Vaccination of the Stem Cell Transplant Recipient and the Hematologic Malignancy Patient.Infectious disease clinics of North America · 2019Review
- Optimal approach to assessing T-cell function in haematopoietic cell transplant recipients.BMJ case reports · 2018Article
- Cytomegalovirus Infection after CD34(+)-Selected Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.Biology of blood and marrow transplantation : journal of the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2016Observational
- Pretransplant vaccinations in allogeneic stem cell transplantation donors and recipients: an often-missed opportunity for immunoprotection?Bone marrow transplantation · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over 40 000 hematopoietic cell transplantations (HCT) are performed worldwide each year, increasing the number of transplant survivors returning to school, the work place and overseas travel. Outbreaks of measles and mumps in immunocompetent individuals and the increased morbidity associated with primary varicella and shingles in older individuals highlight the need for effective vaccination of these vulnerable patients. In current post-HCT vaccination guidelines, only the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) and the live-attenuated varicella vaccine (LAVV) designed to prevent primary varicella in varicella zoster seronegative individuals are permissible post HCT and only in select patient groups. All other vaccines, including the shingles vaccines, are contraindicated post HCT. Current data, primarily in pediatric HCT recipients, demonstrate a 60-70% response following a single MMR or LAVV. A two-dose schedule increases the seroconversion rate following these vaccines. This review will highlight published studies on the immunogenicity of MMR and the LAVV, areas in which data on these vaccines are lacking, the criteria for their use in patients transplanted at our center and potential studies to answer questions posed by the growing number of transplant survivors and their physicians on how to safely administer live-attenuated viral vaccines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.