Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28928960›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2017

The relationship between mucosal immunity, nasopharyngeal carriage, asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of

Christopher Gill, Pejman Rohani, Donald M Thea

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Whole-Cell and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine: Reflections on Efficacy.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. AsymptomaticeLife · 2021
    Observational
  11. AsymptomaticmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Development and Validation of aJournal of immunology research · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Antibody Specificity Following a RecentFrontiers in immunology · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Azithromycin ClearsFrontiers in immunology · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Christopher GillCentre for Global Health and Development , Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, 02118, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3353-0617
Pejman RohaniDepartment of Infectious Diseases College of Veterinary Medicine, Odum School of Ecology , University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602, USA.
Donald M TheaCentre for Global Health and Development , Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, 02118, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The incidence of whooping cough in the US has been rising slowly since the 1970s, but the pace of this has accelerated sharply since acellular pertussis vaccines replaced the earlier whole cell vaccines in the late 1990s. A similar trend occurred in many other countries, including the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and Spain, following the switch to acellular vaccines. The key question is why. Two leading theories (short duration of protective immunologic persistence and evolutionary shifts in the pathogen to evade the vaccine) explain some but not all of these shifts, suggesting that other factors may also be important. In this synthesis, we argue that sterilizing mucosal immunity that blocks or abbreviates the duration of nasopharyngeal carriage of

Indexed as

acellular pertussis vaccinebordetella pertussiswhooping cough

Identifiers

PMID28928960
PMCPMC5580413

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.