Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24917600›Full record

ArticlemBio2014

Acellular pertussis vaccines and pertussis resurgence: revise or replace?

Clara Maria Ausiello, Antonio Cassone

Open access · goldAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in mBio, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Characterization ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fha DeficientIranian journal of public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Development and Validation of aJournal of immunology research · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Population dynamics and antigenic drift ofEmerging microbes & infections · 2019
    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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Clara Maria AusielloAnti-Infectious Immunity Unit, Department of Infectious, Parasitic and Immune-Mediated Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Antonio CassoneDepartment of Experimental Medicine and Biochemical Sciences, Medical School, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy antonio.cassone2@gmail.com.
Istituto Superiore di Sanità · ITUniversity of Perugia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The resurgence of pertussis (whooping cough) in countries with high vaccination coverage is alarming and invites reconsideration of the use of current acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines, which have largely replaced the old, reactogenic, whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccine. Some drawbacks of these vaccines in terms of limited antigenic composition and early waning of antibody levels could be anticipated by the results of in-trial or postlicensure human investigations of B- and T-cell responses in aP versus wP vaccine recipients or unvaccinated, infected children. Recent data in experimental models, including primates, suggest that generation of vaccines capable of a potent, though regulated, stimulation of innate immunity driving effective, persistent adaptive immune responses against Bordetella pertussis infection should be privileged. Adjuvants that skew Th1/Th17 responses or new wP (detoxified or attenuated) vaccines should be explored. Nonetheless, the high merits of the current aP vaccines in persuading people to resume vaccination against pertussis should not be forgotten.

Indexed as

AnimalsBordetella pertussisHumansPertussis VaccineTh17 CellsTh1 CellsVaccinationWhooping CoughPertussis Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID24917600
PMCPMC4056554
OpenAlexW2140979879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.