ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2015
Serological criteria and carriage measurement for evaluation of new pneumococcal vaccines.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine revaccinations in the elderly: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Serotype and molecular diversity of nasopharyngeal Streptococcus pneumoniae isolates from children before and after vaccination with the ten-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV10) in Ethiopia.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Article
- Streptococcus pneumoniae pharyngeal colonization in school-age children and adolescents with cancer.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Article
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
The best method of evaluating the efficacy of a vaccine is to compare the incidence of the disease against which it is prepared in randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials involving vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. In the case of Streptococcus pneumoniae, the proposed alternatives are evaluations of the so-called "correlates of protection" (i.e. markers of the vaccine-induced immune response that predict protection from infection and disease) and nasopharyngeal carriage. The aim of this paper is to discuss the most important limitations of the immunological criteria suggested for licensing new pneumococcal vaccines, and comment on the use of carriage as an endpoint for evaluating efficacy. Data showed why the use of a single serological correlate of protection cannot be considered the best means of evaluating pneumococcal vaccines and highlighted the importance of using carriage for efficacy evaluation but in the meantime the need to develop new sensitive and specific methods.
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.