SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2015
Immunogenicity and safety of intradermal influenza vaccine in immunocompromized patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunogenicity and Safety of Reduced-Dose Intradermal vs Intramuscular Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Fractional dose of intradermal compared to intramuscular and subcutaneous vaccination - A systematic review and meta-analysis.Travel medicine and infectious diseasePooled it
- A prospective, randomized, parallel, active controlled, phase III Indian study of immunogenicity and safety of two inactivated influenza vaccines - Vaxiflu-4 and Fluarix tetra in children aged 6 months to 35 months.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Trial
- Innate gene signature distinguishes humoral versus cytotoxic responses to influenza vaccination.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2019Trial
- Influenza Vaccines for Persons Who Are Immunocompromised: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Intradermal Vaccination: A Potential Tool in the Battle Against the COVID-19 Pandemic?Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Review
- Assessment of Forces in Intradermal Injection Devices: Hydrodynamic Versus Human Factors.Pharmaceutical research · 2018Article
- Influenza vaccines: Evaluation of the safety profile.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Review
- Immunogenicity, safety and tolerability of intradermal influenza vaccines.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Review
- Fluzone® intra-dermal (Intanza®/Istivac® Intra-dermal): An updated overview.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Review
- Intradermal vaccination for infants and children.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2016Review
- Potential Cost-Effectiveness of an Influenza Vaccination Program Offering Microneedle Patch for Vaccine Delivery in Children.PloS one · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary influenza prevention strategy is focused on annual vaccination according to the categories identified in the various countries as being at greatest risk of complications. Many studies were conducted in order to demonstrate that intradermal (ID) vaccine formulation represents a promising alternative to conventional intramuscular (IM) formulation, especially in subjects with an impaired immune system. However, there is no consensus whether the efficacy and safety of ID is equivalent to IM in these subjects. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) to compare the immunogenicity and safety of ID and IM influenza vaccines in subjects with a depleted immune system.
methodsWe conducted a search strategy of medical literature published until November 2014 in order to identify RCTs that evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of ID compared with IM influenza vaccines in immunocompromized patients.
resultsWe identified a total of 269 citations through research in electronic databases and scanning reference lists. Of these, 6 articles were included in the meta-analysis, for a total of 673 subjects. The seroprotection rate induced by the ID vaccine is comparable to that elicited by the IM vaccine. The overall RR was 1.00 (95 % CI = 0.91 -1.10) for A/H1N1 strain, 1.00 (95 % CI = 0.90-1.12) for A/H3N2 and 0.99 (95 % CI = 0.84 -1.16) for B strain. No significant differences in the occurrence of systemic reactions were detected (17.7 % in the ID group vs 18.2 % in the IM group) with a pooled RR = 1.00 (95 % CI = 0.67 -1.51), whereas ID administration caused significantly more injection site reactions with a mean frequency of 46 % in the ID group compared to 22 % in the IM group, with a pooled RR = 1.89 (95 % CI = 1.40 -2.57).
conclusionsThe ID influenza vaccine has shown a similar immunogenicity and safety to the IM influenza vaccine in immunocompromized patients, and it may be a valid option to increase compliance to influenza vaccination in these populations.
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.