Modulating the durability of anti-HIV gp120 antibody responses after vaccination: a comment on Wilson & Karp (2015).

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. HIV-Exposed Infants Vaccinated with an MF59/Recombinant gp120 Vaccine Have Higher-Magnitude Anti-V1V2 IgG Responses than Adults Immunized with the Same Vaccine.Journal of virology · 2018
   Trial
2. Methods for comparing durability of immune responses between vaccine regimens in early-phase trials.Statistical methods in medical research · 2020
   Article
3. A reply to DeVico, Lewis & Gallo (2015).Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  A reply to DeVico, Lewis & Gallo (2015).2015
• Comment on
  Can immunological principles and cross-disciplinary science illuminate the path to vaccines for HIV and other global health challenges?2015

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as