ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2017
Viral interference and the live-attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine: Results from a pediatric cohort with cystic fibrosis.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
- Interference between rhinovirus and influenza A virus: a clinical data analysis and experimental infection study.The Lancet. Microbe · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to explore the effects of viral co-detection in individuals recently vaccinated with the live-attenuated intranasal influenza virus vaccine (LAIV) on the detection of influenza RNA.
methodsBefore the 2013-2014 influenza season, nasal swabs were obtained from 59 pediatric participants with cystic fibrosis (CF) and 17 of their healthy siblings immediately before vaccination and 4 times during the week of follow-up. Real-time RT-PCR assays were used to detect influenza RNA. Co-detection of a non-influenza respiratory virus (NIRV) at the time of vaccination was determined by a multiplex RT-PCR assay. Differences in the proportions and rates of influenza detection and their 95% credible intervals (CrI) were estimated.
resultsInfluenza RNA was detected in 16% fewer participants (95% CrI: -7, 39%) throughout follow-up in the NIRV-positive group compared with the NIRV-negative group (59% vs. 75%). This was also observed in participants with CF alone (66% vs. 74%; RD = 8% 95% CrI: -16, 33%) as well as in healthy participants only (75% vs. 30%; RD = 45%, 95% CrI: -2, 81%). Influenza was detected in NIRV-negative subjects for 0.49 d more compared with NIRV-positive subjects (95% CrI: -0.37, 1.26).
conclusionThe observed proportion of subjects in whom influenza RNA was detected and the duration of detection differed slightly between NIRV- positive and -negative subjects. However, wide credible intervals for the difference preclude definitive conclusions. If true, this observed association may be related to a recent viral respiratory infection, a phenomenon known as viral interference.
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.