Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23955378›Full record

ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2013

Effectiveness of one dose of mumps vaccine against clinically diagnosed mumps in Guangzhou, China, 2006-2012.

Chuanxi Fu, Jianxiong Xu, Yuanjun Cai, Qing He, Chunhuan Zhang, Jian Chen, Zhiqiang Dong, Wensui Hu, Hui Wang, Wei Zhu and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of extreme meteorological factors on daily mumps cases in Hefei, China, during 2011-2016.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors.

Chuanxi FuGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Jianxiong XuGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Yuanjun CaiGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Qing HeGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Chunhuan ZhangGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Jian ChenGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Zhiqiang DongGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Wensui HuGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Hui WangGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Wei ZhuGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.
Ming WangGuangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Guangzhou, PR China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although mumps-containing vaccines were introduced in China in 1990s, mumps continues to be a public health concern due to the lack of decline in reported mumps cases. To assess the mumps vaccine effectiveness (VE) in Guangzhou, China, we performed a 1:1 matched case-control study. Among children in Guangzhou aged 8 mo to 12 y during 2006 to 2012, we matched one healthy child to each child with clinically diagnosed mumps. Cases with clinically diagnosed mumps were identified from surveillance sites system and healthy controls were randomly sampled from the Children's Expanded Programmed Immunization Administrative Computerized System in Guangzhou. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate VE. We analyzed the vaccination information for 1983 mumps case subjects and 1983 matched controls and found that the overall VE for 1 dose of mumps vaccine, irrespective of the manufacture, was 53.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41.0-63.5%) to children aged 8 mo to 12 y. This post-marketing mumps VE study found that immunization with one dose of the mumps vaccine confers partial protection against mumps disease. Evaluation of the VE for the current mumps vaccines, introduction of a second dose of mumps vaccine, and assessment of modifications to childhood immunization schedules is essential.

Indexed as

Case-Control StudiesChild, PreschoolChinaFemaleHumansImmunotherapyInfantMaleMumpsMumps VaccineTreatment OutcomeMumps VaccinechildrenChinamatched case-control studiesmumpsvaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID23955378
PMCPMC4162052

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.