Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26511884›Full record

ReviewExpert review of vaccines2016

Recombinant modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based malaria vaccines.

Sarah Sebastian, Sarah C Gilbert

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Expert review of vaccines, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Protein/AS01Cell reports. Medicine · 2021
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. A review of Phase I trials of Ebola virus vaccines: what can we learn from the race to develop novel vaccines?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah Sebastiana The Jenner Institute , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Sarah C Gilberta The Jenner Institute , University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Jenner Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A safe and effective malaria vaccine is a crucial part of the roadmap to malaria elimination/eradication by the year 2050. Viral-vectored vaccines based on adenoviruses and modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) expressing malaria immunogens are currently being used in heterologous prime-boost regimes in clinical trials for induction of strong antigen-specific T-cell responses and high-titer antibodies. Recombinant MVA is a safe and well-tolerated attenuated vector that has consistently shown significant boosting potential. Advances have been made in large-scale MVA manufacture as high-yield producer cell lines and high-throughput purification processes have recently been developed. This review describes the use of MVA as malaria vaccine vector in both preclinical and clinical studies in the past 5 years.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicDrug CarriersGenetic VectorsHumansMalaria VaccinesVaccines, SyntheticVaccinia virusDrug CarriersMalaria VaccinesVaccines, Syntheticclinical trialsheterologous prime-boostmalariamodified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA)plasmodiumvaccine

Identifiers

PMID26511884
PMCPMC9491075
OpenAlexW1836928426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.