Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25964451›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015

Biological challenges to effective vaccines in the developing world.

Nicholas C Grassly, Gagandeep Kang, Beate Kampmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Breastfeeding and the Risk of Infant Illness in Asia: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Construction of aIndian journal of microbiology · 2019
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
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

3 authors.

Nicholas C GrasslyDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK The Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Division of Gastrointestinal Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632004, India n.grassly@imperial.ac.uk.
Gagandeep KangThe Wellcome Trust Research Laboratory, Division of Gastrointestinal Sciences, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu 632004, India.
Beate KampmannDepartment of Medicine, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK Vaccinology Theme, MRC Unit, The Gambia, Atlantic Road, Fajara, The Gambia.

Funding

Department of Health SRF-2009-02-07Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/K011944/1Medical Research Council MC_UP_A900_1122Medical Research Council MR/K010174/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reason for holding a meeting to discuss biological challenges to vaccines is simple: not all vaccines work equally well in all settings. This special issue reviews the performance of vaccines in challenging environments, summarizes current thinking on the reasons why vaccines underperform and considers what approaches are necessary to understand the heterogeneity in responses and to improve vaccine immunogenicity and efficacy.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesAdaptive ImmunityAdministration, OralBiomedical ResearchCommunicable Disease ControlEnvironmentHumansResearch DesignVaccinesVaccinesimmunizationimmunologyinfectious diseasevaccinevaccinology

Identifiers

PMID25964451
PMCPMC4527384

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.