Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26810964›Full record

ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

A review of clinical models for the evaluation of human TB vaccines.

Matthew K O'Shea, Helen McShane

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew K O'Sheaa The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Helen McShanea The Jenner Institute, University of Oxford , Oxford , UK.
Jenner Institute · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While much progress has been made in the fight against the scourge of tuberculosis (TB), we are still some way from reaching the ambitious targets of eliminating it as a global public health problem by the mid twenty-first century. A new and effective vaccine that protects against pulmonary TB disease will be an essential element of any control strategy. Over a dozen vaccines are currently in development, but recent efficacy trial data from one of the most advanced candidates have been disappointing. Limitations of current preclinical animal models exist, together with a lack of a complete understanding of host immunity to TB or robust correlates of disease risk and protection. Therefore, in the context of such obstacles, we discuss the lessons identified from recent efficacy trials, current concepts of biomarkers and correlates of protection, the potential of innovative clinical models such as human challenge and conducting trials in high-incidence settings to evaluate TB vaccines in humans, and the use of systems vaccinology and novel technologies including transcriptomics and metabolomics, that may facilitate their utility.

Indexed as

BCG VaccineTuberculosis VaccinesAnimalsBiomarkersClinical Trials as TopicDisease Models, AnimalDrug DesignGene Expression ProfilingHumansMetabolomicsMycobacterium tuberculosisTuberculosisTuberculosis, PulmonaryVaccinationVaccines, DNABCG VaccineBiomarkersMVA 85ATuberculosis VaccinesVaccines, DNABCGclinical modelsclinical trialsMVA85AMycobacterium tuberculosistuberculosisvaccine

Identifiers

PMID26810964
PMCPMC4963076
OpenAlexW2304773952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.