Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23520497›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2013

Seroprevalence of mumps in The Netherlands: dynamics over a decade with high vaccination coverage and recent outbreaks.

Gaby Smits, Liesbeth Mollema, Susan Hahné, Hester de Melker, Irina Tcherniaeva, Sandra Waaijenborg, Rob van Binnendijk, Fiona van der Klis, Guy Berbers

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Gaby SmitsLaboratory for Infectious Diseases and Screening, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Gaby.Smits@rivm.nl
Liesbeth Mollema
Susan Hahné
Hester de Melker
Irina Tcherniaeva
Sandra Waaijenborg
Rob van Binnendijk
Fiona van der Klis
Guy Berbers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Here we present mumps virus specific antibody levels in a large cross-sectional population-based serosurveillance study performed in the Netherlands in 2006/2007 (n = 7900). Results were compared with a similar study (1995/1996) and discussed in the light of recent outbreaks. Mumps antibodies were tested using a fluorescent bead-based multiplex immunoassay. Overall seroprevalence was 90.9% with higher levels in the naturally infected cohorts compared with vaccinated cohorts. Mumps virus vaccinations at 14 months and 9 years resulted in an increased seroprevalence and antibody concentration. The second vaccination seemed to be important in acquiring stable mumps antibody levels in the long term. In conclusion, the Dutch population is well protected against mumps virus infection. However, we identified specific age- and population groups at increased risk of mumps infection. Indeed, in 2007/2008 an outbreak has occurred in the low vaccination coverage groups emphasizing the predictive value of serosurveillance studies.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksVaccinationAdolescentAdultAgedAntibodies, ViralChildChild, PreschoolHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMiddle AgedMumpsMumps VaccineNetherlandsAntibodies, ViralMumps Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID23520497
PMCPMC3592917

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.