Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24147164›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2013

First outbreak response using an oral cholera vaccine in Africa: vaccine coverage, acceptability and surveillance of adverse events, Guinea, 2012.

Francisco J Luquero, Lise Grout, Iza Ciglenecki, Keita Sakoba, Bala Traore, Melat Heile, Alpha Amadou Dialo, Christian Itama, Micaela Serafini, Dominique Legros and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Post-licensure deployment of oral cholera vaccines: a systematic review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Cholera for travellers.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Francisco J LuqueroEpicentre, Paris, France.
Lise Grout
Iza Ciglenecki
Keita Sakoba
Bala Traore
Melat Heile
Alpha Amadou Dialo
Christian Itama
Micaela Serafini
Dominique Legros
Rebecca F Grais
Médecins Sans Frontières · CHMinistry of Health and Public Hygiene · GNGamal Abdel Nasser University of Conakry · GN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification of two safe and effective oral cholera vaccines (OCV), concerns about the acceptability, potential diversion of resources, cost and feasibility of implementing timely campaigns has discouraged their use. In 2012, the Ministry of Health of Guinea, with the support of Médecins Sans Frontières organized the first mass vaccination campaign using a two-dose OCV (Shanchol) as an additional control measure to respond to the on-going nationwide epidemic. Overall, 316,250 vaccines were delivered. Here, we present the results of vaccination coverage, acceptability and surveillance of adverse events. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe performed a cross-sectional cluster survey and implemented adverse event surveillance. The study population included individuals older than 12 months, eligible for vaccination, and residing in the areas targeted for vaccination (Forécariah and Boffa, Guinea). Data sources were household interviews with verification by vaccination card and notifications of adverse events from surveillance at vaccination posts and health centres. In total 5,248 people were included in the survey, 3,993 in Boffa and 1,255 in Forécariah. Overall, 89.4% [95%CI:86.4-91.8%] and 87.7% [95%CI:84.2-90.6%] were vaccinated during the first round and 79.8% [95%CI:75.6-83.4%] and 82.9% [95%CI:76.6-87.7%] during the second round in Boffa and Forécariah respectively. The two dose vaccine coverage (including card and oral reporting) was 75.8% [95%CI: 71.2-75.9%] in Boffa and 75.9% [95%CI: 69.8-80.9%] in Forécariah respectively. Vaccination coverage was higher in children. The main reason for non-vaccination was absence. No severe adverse events were notified. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The well-accepted mass vaccination campaign reached high coverage in a remote area with a mobile population. Although OCV should not be foreseen as the long-term solution for global cholera control, they should be integrated as an additional tool into the response.

Indexed as

Disease OutbreaksAdministration, OralAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolCholeraCholera VaccinesCluster AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEpidemiological MonitoringFemaleGuineaHumansInfantCholera Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID24147164
PMCPMC3798604
OpenAlexW1974439423

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.