Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29237708›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews2018

Vaccine and Therapeutic Options To Control Chikungunya Virus.

Ann M Powers

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed
15.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 146 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Outbreak of Chikungunya Virus withChina CDC weekly · 2025
    Article
  8. Phenol and chromone compounds forPharmaceutical science advances · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Chikungunya outbreak in Africa: a review of the literature.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023
    Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ann M PowersDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA APowers@cdc.gov.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Beginning in 2004, chikungunya virus (CHIKV) went from an endemic pathogen limited to Africa and Asia that caused periodic outbreaks to a global pathogen. Given that outbreaks caused by CHIKV have continued and expanded, serious consideration must be given to identifying potential options for vaccines and therapeutics. Currently, there are no licensed products in this realm, and control relies completely on the use of personal protective measures and integrated vector control, which are only minimally effective. Therefore, it is prudent to urgently examine further possibilities for control. Vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against vector-borne diseases. However, as CHIKV is known to rapidly spread and generate high attack rates, therapeutics would also be highly valuable. Several candidates are currently being developed; this review describes the multiple options under consideration for future development and assesses their relative advantages and disadvantages.

Indexed as

Viral VaccinesAntiviral AgentsChikungunya FeverChikungunya virusAntiviral AgentsViral Vaccineschikungunyatherapeuticsvaccine

Identifiers

PMID29237708
PMCPMC5740971
OpenAlexW2771338911

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.