Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27049653›Full record

ReviewExpert review of vaccines2016

Defending against smallpox: a focus on vaccines.

Emily A Voigt, Richard B Kennedy, Gregory A Poland

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 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Waning humoral immunity following monkeypox virus infection and vaccination, Canada, 2020 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026
    Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Vaccines against monkeypox.Medicina clinica (English ed.) · 2023
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Monkeypox Virus Infections in Humans.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. A narrative review of pox: smallpox vs monkeypox.The Egyptian journal of internal medicine · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily A Voigta Mayo Vaccine Research Group , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , MN , USA.
Richard B Kennedya Mayo Vaccine Research Group , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , MN , USA.
Gregory A Polanda Mayo Vaccine Research Group , Mayo Clinic , Rochester , MN , USA.
Mayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS N01 AI040065
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smallpox has shaped human history, from the earliest human civilizations well into the 20th century. With high mortality rates, rapid transmission, and serious long-term effects on survivors, smallpox was a much-feared disease. The eradication of smallpox represents an unprecedented medical victory for the lasting benefit of human health and prosperity. Concerns remain, however, about the development and use of the smallpox virus as a biological weapon, which necessitates the need for continued vaccine development. Smallpox vaccine development is thus a much-reviewed topic of high interest. This review focuses on the current state of smallpox vaccines and their context in biodefense efforts.

Indexed as

BioterrorismDisease EradicationAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHumansSmallpoxSmallpox VaccineSmallpox Vaccinebiological warfarebioterrorismSmallpoxsmallpox vaccinevaccinia virus

Identifiers

PMID27049653
PMCPMC5003177
OpenAlexW2312349961

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.