Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23794129›Full record

ReviewDrugs2013

Vaccine development for tuberculosis: current progress.

Ian M Orme

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact ofCells · 2022
    Article
  2. Pathological and protective roles of dendritic cells inFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Tuberculosis vaccine types and timings.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2015
    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

1 author.

Ian M OrmeDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. ian.orme@colostate.edu

Funding

Response Therapies for MDR-TBU01AI070456 · NIAID · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI ORME, IAN M · 2006 to 2010
$6.4M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI070456
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Very substantial efforts have been made over the past decade or more to develop vaccines against tuberculosis. Historically, this began with a view to replace the current vaccine, Bacillus Calmette Guérin (BCG), but more recently most candidates are either new forms of this bacillus, or are designed to boost immunity in children given BCG as infants. Good progress is being made, but very few have, as yet, progressed into clinical trials. The leading candidate has advanced to phase IIb efficacy testing, with disappointing results. This article discusses the various types of vaccines, including those designed to be used in a prophylactic setting, either alone or BCG-boosting, true therapeutic (post-exposure) vaccines, and therapeutic vaccines designed to augment chemotherapy. While there is no doubt that progress is still being made, we have a growing awareness of the limitations of our animal model screening processes, further amplified by the fact that we still do not have a clear picture of the immunological responses involved, and the precise type of long-lived immunity that effective new vaccines will need to induce.

Indexed as

Drug DesignAnimalsChildHumansInfantModels, AnimalMycobacterium bovisTuberculosisTuberculosis VaccinesVaccinationTuberculosis Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID23794129
PMCPMC3752905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.