Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26857450›Full record

ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2016

Vaccines in pregnancy: The dual benefit for pregnant women and infants.

H Marshall, M McMillan, R M Andrews, K Macartney, K Edwards

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron Variant.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

H Marshalla Paediatrics, Women's and Children's Health Network , Adelaide, South Australia and Robinson Research Institute and School of Medicine, University of Adelaide , Adelaide , South Australia , Australia.
M McMillana Paediatrics, Women's and Children's Health Network , Adelaide, South Australia and Robinson Research Institute and School of Medicine, University of Adelaide , Adelaide , South Australia , Australia.
R M Andrewsb Menzies School of Health Research , Brisbane , Queensland , Australia.
K Macartneyc Sydney Medical School, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology , The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; National Centre for Immunization Research and Surveillance , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia.
K Edwardsd Vanderbilt University , Nashville , TN , USA.
Menzies School of Health Research · AUNational Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AUVanderbilt University · USWomen's and Children's Health Network · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Maternal immunization has the potential to reduce the burden of infectious diseases in the pregnant woman and her infant. Many countries now recommend immunization against influenza at any stage of pregnancy and against pertussis in the third trimester. Despite evidence of the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines when administered during pregnancy, uptake generally remains low for influenza and moderate for pertussis vaccine. Enhancing confidence in both immunization providers and pregnant women by increasing the evidence-base for the safety and effectiveness of vaccines during pregnancy, improving communication and access by incorporating immunization into standard models of antenatal care are likely to improve uptake. Developing a framework for implementation of vaccines for pregnant women which is cognizant of local and national cultural, epidemiological, behavioral and societal factors will enable a smooth transition and high uptake for new vaccines currently in development for pregnant women.

Indexed as

Influenza VaccinesPertussis VaccinePregnant PeopleVaccinesDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesFemaleHumansInfantInfluenza, HumanPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPregnancy Trimester, ThirdVaccinationWhooping CoughDiphtheria-Tetanus-acellular Pertussis VaccinesInfluenza VaccinesPertussis VaccineVaccinesimmunizationinfluenzamaternal immunizationpertussispregnant womenvaccines

Identifiers

PMID26857450
PMCPMC4962964
OpenAlexW2283979497

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.