Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24336054›Full record

SynthesisThe Pediatric infectious disease journal2014

Systematic review of the effect of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine dosing schedules on immunogenicity.

Maria Deloria Knoll, Daniel E Park, T Scott Johnson, Subash Chandir, Bareng Aletta S Nonyane, Laura Conklin, Katherine E Fleming-Dutra, Jennifer D Loo, David Goldblatt, Cynthia G Whitney and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Pediatric infectious disease journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Vaccination againstVaccines · 2023
    Article
  16. Pilus ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Maria Deloria KnollFrom the *International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; †Biostatistics Consulting, Chicago, IL; ‡Respiratory Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial Diseases, National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; §Epidemic Intelligence Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA; ¶Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel E Park
T Scott Johnson
Subash Chandir
Bareng Aletta S Nonyane
Laura Conklin
Katherine E Fleming-Dutra
Jennifer D Loo
David Goldblatt
Cynthia G Whitney
Katherine L O'Brien
Johns Hopkins University · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USBiostatistical Consulting (United States) · USNational Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases · USUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the breadth of studies demonstrating benefits of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), uncertainty remains regarding the optimal PCV dosing schedule in infants.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature review of PCV immunogenicity published from 1994 to 2010 (supplemented post hoc with studies from 2011). Studies included for analysis evaluated ≥2 doses of 7-valent or higher product (excluding Aventis-Pasteur PCV11) administered to nonhigh-risk infants ≤6 months of age. Impact of PCV schedule on geometric mean antibody concentration (GMC) and proportion of subjects over 0.35 mcg/mL were assessed at various time points; the GMC 1 month postdose 3 (for various dosing regimens) for serotypes 1, 5, 6B, 14, 19F and 23F was assessed in detail using random effects linear regression, adjusted for product, acellular diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis/whole-cell diphtheria- tetanus-pertussis coadministration, laboratory method, age at first dose and geographic region.

resultsFrom 61 studies, we evaluated 13 two-dose (2+0) and 65 three-dose primary schedules (3+0) without a booster dose, 11 "2+1" (2 primary plus booster) and 42 "3+1" schedules. The GMC after the primary series was higher following 3-dose schedules compared with 2-dose schedules for all serotypes except for serotype 1. Pre- and postbooster GMCs were generally similar regardless of whether 2 or 3 primary doses were given. GMCs were significantly higher for all serotypes when dose 3 was administered in the second year (2+1) compared with ≤6 months of age (3+0).

conclusionsWhile giving the third dose in the second year of life produces a higher antibody response than when given as part of the primary series in the first 6 months, the lower GMC between the 2-dose primary series and booster may result in less disease protection for infants in that interval than those who completed the 3-dose primary series. Theoretical advantages of higher antibodies induced by giving the third dose in the second year of life, such as increased protection against serotype 1 disease, longer duration of protection or more rapid induction of herd effects, need to be evaluated in practice.

Indexed as

Antibodies, BacterialHumansImmunization ScheduleInfantPneumococcal InfectionsPneumococcal VaccinesStreptococcus pneumoniaeVaccines, ConjugateAntibodies, BacterialPneumococcal VaccinesVaccines, Conjugate

Identifiers

PMID24336054
PMCPMC3940378
OpenAlexW2088430959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.