ArticleHNO2015
[Vaccinations in respiratory medicine].
Article in HNO, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccinations are the most successful and cost-effective measures for prevention of infections. Important pathogens of respiratory tract infections (e.g. influenza viruses and pneumococci) can be effectively treated by vaccinations. The seasonal trivalent and recently now quadrivalent influenza vaccines include antigens from influenza A and B type viruses, which have to be modified annually oriented to the circulating strains. The effective protection by influenza vaccination varies considerably (too short protection time, mismatch); therefore, administration late in the year is the best approach (November/December). Two pneumococcal vaccines are recommended for adults: the over 30-year-old 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (PPV23) and the 4-year-old 13-valent conjugate vaccine (PCV13). The immunological and clinical efficacy of PPV23 is controversially discussed; however, a moderate reduction of invasive pneumococcal infections is widely accepted. The PCV13 stimulates a T-cell response and has currently demonstrated its clinical efficacy in an impressive study (CAPiTA). The problem of PCV13 is the relatively limited coverage of only 47% of the currently circulating invasive pneumococcal serotypes.
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.