Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24314622›Full record

ReviewDeutsches Arzteblatt international2013

Targeted vaccine selection in influenza vaccination.

Peter Wutzler, Roland Hardt, Markus Knuf, Klaus Wahle

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Application of radiation technology in vaccines development.Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2015
    Review
  3. Active targeted drug delivery for microbes using nano-carriers.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2015
    Review
  4. High vaccination rate is crucial.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  5. In reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2014
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Influenza vaccination and the end of simplicity.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter WutzlerInstitute of Virology and Antiviral Therapy - University Hospital Jena, Catholic Clinic Mainz, St. Hildegardis Hospital, Department of Child and Adolescent Medicine, Dr. Horst Schmidt Clinic GmbH, Wiesbaden, German Association of General Practitioners, Münster.
Roland Hardt
Markus Knuf
Klaus Wahle
Jena University Hospital · DEHelios Dr. Horst Schmidt Kliniken Wiesbaden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe main target groups for influenza vaccination are the elderly, the chronically ill, infants, and toddlers. Influenza vaccines are needed that suit the immunological particularities of each of these age and risk groups. Recent years have seen the approval of influenza vaccines that are more immunogenic than before, but whose use in Germany is limited by the restriction of reimbursement to a small number of vaccines.

methodsThe Medline database was selectively searched for pertinent literature.

resultsThe suboptimal immunogenicity of conventional influenza vaccines that contain inactivated viral cleavage products and subunits can be markedly improved by the use of squalene-based adjuvant systems, by the integration of viral antigens in virosomal particles, or by intradermal administration. The vaccination of elderly persons with a vaccine containing the adjuvant MF59 was found to lower the risk of hospitalization for influenza or pneumonia by 25% compared to vaccination with a trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV). On the other hand, the adjuvant ASO3 was found to be associated with an up to 17-fold increase in the frequency of narcolepsy among 4- to 18-year-olds. In a prospective study, a virosomal vaccine lowered the frequency of laboratory-confirmed influenza in vaccinated children by 88% compared to unvaccinated children (2 versus 18 cases per 1000 individuals). A live, attenuated influenza vaccine lowered the rate of disease in children up to age 7 by 48% compared to a TIV (4.2% versus 8.1%).

conclusionThe newer vaccines possess improved efficacy when used for primary and booster immunization in certain age and risk groups, and they are superior in this respect to conventional vaccines based on viral cleavage products and subunits. The risk/benefit profiles of all currently available vaccines vary depending on the age group or risk group in which they are used.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionChildChild, PreschoolComorbidityGermanyHospitalizationHumansInfantInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMass VaccinationMiddle AgedInfluenza Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID24314622
PMCPMC3859908
OpenAlexW1551629412

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.