Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23839537›Full record

Trial reportHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2013

Safety, immunogenicity, and tolerability of three influenza vaccines in older adults: results of a randomized, controlled comparison.

David W Scheifele, Shelly A McNeil, Brian J Ward, Marc Dionne, Curtis Cooper, Brenda Coleman, Mark Loeb, Ethan Rubinstein, Janet McElhaney, Todd Hatchette and 6 more

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Virosomes: Beyond Vaccines.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Current Challenges in Vaccinology.Frontiers in immunology · 2020
    Review
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

16 authors.

David W ScheifeleVaccine Evaluation Center; University of British Columbia; Vancouver, BC Canada.
Shelly A McNeil
Brian J Ward
Marc Dionne
Curtis Cooper
Brenda Coleman
Mark Loeb
Ethan Rubinstein
Janet McElhaney
Todd Hatchette
Yan Li
Emanuele Montomoli
Amy Schneeberg
Julie A Bettinger
Scott A Halperin
PHAC /CIHR Influenza Research Network

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To determine if newer influenza vaccines can safely improve seroprotection rates of older adults, we compared three licensed trivalent inactivated vaccines (TIVs) in a randomized, controlled trial with evaluator blinding. Participants were non-frail adults ≥ 65 y old, annually TIV-immunized. Study vaccines included intradermal (IDV), MF59-adjuvanted (ADV) and subunit (TIV) formulations of equal potency and strain composition. Blood was obtained before vaccination (V1) and 21 (V2) and 180 d (V3) afterward and tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HAI) assay. Safety diaries were completed daily by participants and specific tolerability questions were posed regarding injections and symptoms. In total, 911 participants were immunized and 887 (97.4%) completed V3. Groups had similar demographics. General symptom rates post-vaccination were similar among groups. Rates of injection site redness after IDV/ADV/TIV were 75%/13%/13% and rates of pain were 29%/38%/20%, respectively, but each vaccine was well tolerated, with symptoms causing little bother. Baseline antibody titers did not differ significantly among groups but B/Brisbane titers were too high for meaningful response assessments. At V2, seroprotection rates (HAI titer ≥ 40) were highest after ADV, the rate advantage over IDV and TIV being significant at 11.8% and 11.4% for H3N2 and 10.2% and 12.5% for H1N1, respectively. At day 180, seroprotection rates had declined ~25% and no longer differed significantly among groups. While IDV and TIV were also well tolerated, ADV induced modestly higher antibody titers in seniors to influenza A strains at 3 weeks but not 6 mo post-vaccination. Immune responses to IDV and TIV were similar in this population.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, ViralDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsFemaleHemagglutination Inhibition TestsHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMaleProspective StudiesVaccines, InactivatedAntibodies, ViralInfluenza VaccinesVaccines, Inactivatedadjuvantadultsimmunizationinfluenzavaccine safety

Identifiers

PMID23839537
PMCPMC3981857

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.