Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28607461›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Geographic variation in pneumococcal vaccine efficacy estimated from dynamic modeling of epidemiological data post-PCV7.

Erida Gjini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Vaccine manufacturing capacity in low- and middle-income countries.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

1 author.

Erida GjiniInstituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Rua da Quinta Grande 6, Oeiras, Portugal. egjini@igc.gulbenkian.pt.ORCID 0000-0002-0493-3102

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although mean efficacy of multivalent pneumococcus vaccines has been intensively studied, variance in vaccine efficacy (VE) has been overlooked. Different net individual protection across settings can be driven by environmental conditions, local serotype and clonal composition, as well as by socio-demographic and genetic host factors. Understanding efficacy variation has implications for population-level effectiveness and other eco-evolutionary feedbacks. Here I show that realized VE can vary across epidemiological settings, by applying a multi-site-one-model approach to data post-vaccination. I analyse serotype prevalence dynamics following PCV7, in asymptomatic carriage in children attending day care in Portugal, Norway, France, Greece, Hungary and Hong-Kong. Model fitting to each dataset provides site-specific estimates for vaccine efficacy against acquisition, and pneumococcal transmission parameters. According to this model, variable serotype replacement across sites can be explained through variable PCV7 efficacy, ranging from 40% in Norway to 10% in Hong-Kong. While the details of how this effect is achieved remain to be determined, here I report three factors negatively associated with the VE readout, including initial prevalence of serotype 19F, daily mean temperature, and the Gini index. The study warrants more attention on local modulators of vaccine performance and calls for predictive frameworks within and across populations.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsChildChild Day Care CentersFranceGreeceHeptavalent Pneumococcal Conjugate VaccineHong KongHumansHungaryModels, TheoreticalNorwayPneumococcal InfectionsPortugalPrevalenceSerogroupStreptococcus pneumoniaeHeptavalent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine

Identifiers

PMID28607461
PMCPMC5468270

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.