Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28481673›Full record

SynthesisHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2018

Influenza vaccine effectiveness among high-risk groups: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies.

Vincenzo Restivo, Claudio Costantino, Stefania Bono, Marialuisa Maniglia, Valentina Marchese, Gianmarco Ventura, Alessandra Casuccio, Fabio Tramuto, Francesco Vitale

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mapping climate change-driven epidemics.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

9 authors.

Vincenzo Restivoa Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.
Claudio Costantinoa Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3397-7331
Stefania Bonoa Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.
Marialuisa Manigliaa Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.
Valentina Marchesea Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.
Gianmarco Venturaa Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.
Alessandra Casuccioa Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.
Fabio Tramutoa Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.
Francesco Vitalea Department of Science for Health Promotion and Mother-Child Care "G. D'Alessandro" , University of Palermo , Palermo , Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination represents the most effective intervention to prevent infection, hospitalization and mortality due to influenza. This meta-analysis quantifies data reporting influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) on influenza visits and hospitalizations of case-control and cohort studies among high-risk groups. A systematic literature review including original articles published between 2007 and 2016, using a protocol registered on Prospero with No. 42017054854, and a meta-analysis were conducted. For 3 high-risk groups (subjects with underlying health conditions, pregnant women and health care workers) only a qualitative evaluation was performed. The VE quantitative analysis demonstrated a clear significant overall effect of 39% (95%CI: 32-46%) for visits and 57% (95%CI: 30-74%) for hospitalization among children. Considering the elderly influenza VE had a clear effect of 25% (95%CI: 6-40%) for visits and 14% (95%CI: 7-21%; p<0.001) for hospitalization. This study showed the high VE of influenza vaccination among high-risk groups, representing a tool for public health decision-makers to develop evidence-based preventive interventions to avoid influenza outcomes.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleHospitalizationHumansInfantInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesMiddle AgedPregnancyInfluenza Vaccineschildrenchronic diseaseeffectivenesselderly subjectshealth care workerhospitalizationinfluenzapregnancyvaccinevisit

Identifiers

PMID28481673
PMCPMC5890832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.