ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2015
Delivering vaccines to the people who need them most.
Review 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 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug development in LMICs: could the emerging Indian model usher the southeast Asian region?The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024Review
- Nanomedicines for the Delivery of Biologics.Pharmaceutics · 2019Article
- Chemical Modification of Chitosan for Efficient Vaccine Delivery.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Biological challenges to effective vaccines in the developing world.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thanks to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), the Vaccine Fund and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the global health community has made enormous progress in providing already existing vaccines to developing countries. However, there still exists a gap to develop vaccines for which there is no market in the Western world, owing to low economic incentives for the private sector to justify the investments necessary for vaccine development. In many cases, industry has the technologies, but lacks the impetus to direct resources to develop these vaccine products. The present emergency with the Ebola vaccine provides us an excellent example where a vaccine was feasible several years ago, but the global health community waited for a humanitarian disaster to direct efforts and resources to develop this vaccine. In the beginning of 2015, the first large-scale trials of two experimental vaccines against Ebola virus disease have begun in West Africa. During the past few years, several institutions have dedicated efforts to the development of vaccines against diseases present only in low-income countries. These include the International Vaccine Institute, the Novartis Vaccines Institute for Global Health, the Hilleman Institute, the Sabin Vaccine Institute and the Infectious Disease Research Institute. Nevertheless, solving this problem requires a more significant global effort than that currently invested. These efforts include a clear policy, global coordination of funds dedicated to the development of neglected disease and an agreement on regulatory strategies and incentives for the private sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.