Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24998740›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2014

Models matter: the search for an effective Staphylococcus aureus vaccine.

Wilmara Salgado-Pabón, Patrick M Schlievert

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-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

118 citing papers in PubMed, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Role and plasticity of Th1 and Th17 responses in immunity toHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A rabbit model of acute bacteremia and sepsis caused by vancomycin-resistantFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  7. Clinical severity-dependent virulence ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  8. Microorganisms · 2025
    Review
  9. Science advances · 2025
    Article
  10. A promisingClinical and experimental vaccine research · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Integrated genomic and proteomic analysis of the mouse-adaptedCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 1 institution in 1 country.

Wilmara Salgado-PabónDepartment of Microbiology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA.
Patrick M SchlievertDepartment of Microbiology, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA.
University of Iowa · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus is a highly successful bacterial pathogen owing to its abundance of cell surface and secreted virulence factors. It is estimated that 30% of the population is colonized with S. aureus, usually on mucosal surfaces, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus is a major public health concern. There have been multiple attempts to develop an S. aureus vaccine using one or more cell surface virulence factors as antigens; all of these vaccine trials have failed. In this Opinion article, we suggest that an over-reliance on rodent models and a focus on targeting cell surface components have been major contributing factors to this failure.

Indexed as

AnimalsHumansMiceStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcal VaccinesStaphylococcus aureusStaphylococcal Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID24998740
OpenAlexW2088137635

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.