Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23440780›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults.

Sarah Moberley, John Holden, David Paul Tatham, Ross M Andrews

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 240 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
240citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
66.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

240 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 963 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

180 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah MoberleyMenzies School of Health Research, Darwin, Australia. sarah.moberley@gmail.com.
John Holden
David Paul Tatham
Ross M Andrews
Menzies School of Health Research · AUSt Helens Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiseases caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) continue to cause substantial morbidity and mortality globally. Whilst pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (PPVs) have the potential to prevent disease and death, the degree of protection afforded against various clinical endpoints and within different populations is uncertain.

objectivesTo assess the efficacy and effectiveness of PPVs in preventing pneumococcal disease or death in adults. We did not assess adverse events. SEARCH

methodsWe searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to June Week 2, 2012) and EMBASE (1974 to June 2012). SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, provided the study outcome met the definition of the outcome considered in the review. We also considered non-RCTs in adults, where the study assessed PPV effectiveness against culture-confirmed invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), provided the study controlled for important confounding factors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed trial quality of RCTs and three review authors extracted the data. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model. Two review authors assessed study quality and extracted data for non-RCTs. We calculated ORs and 95% CIs using a random-effects model following the conversion of each study outcome to a log OR and standard error (SE). MAIN

resultsTwenty-five studies met our inclusion criteria (18 RCTs involving 64,852 participants and seven non-RCTs involving 62,294 participants). Meta-analysis of the RCTs found strong evidence of PPV efficacy against IPD with no statistical heterogeneity (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.45; random-effects model, I(2) statistic = 0%). There was efficacy against all-cause pneumonia in low-income (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.67, I(2) statistic = 19%) but not high-income countries in either the general population (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.12, I(2) statistic = 93%) or in adults with chronic illness (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.19, I(2) statistic = 10%). PPV was not associated with substantial reductions in all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.09; random-effects model, I(2) statistic = 69%). Vaccine efficacy against primary outcomes appeared poorer in adults with chronic illness. Non-RCTs provided evidence for protection against IPD in populations for whom the vaccine is currently utilised (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61; random-effects model, I(2) statistic = 31%). This review did not consider adverse events as it was outside the scope of the review. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides evidence supporting the recommendation for PPV to prevent IPD in adults. The evidence from RCTs is less clear with respect to adults with chronic illness. This might be because of lack of effect or lack of power in the studies. The meta-analysis does not provide evidence to support the routine use of PPV to prevent all-cause pneumonia or mortality.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCase-Control StudiesHumansMiddle AgedPneumococcal VaccinesPneumonia, PneumococcalProspective StudiesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPneumococcal Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID23440780
PMCPMC7045867
OpenAlexW2102952170

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.