ArticlePaediatrics & child health2018
Intranasal influenza vaccine: Why does Canada have different recommendations from the USA on its use?
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demonstrating the capacity of the National Advisory Committee on Immunization for timely responses to post-market vaccine monitoring signals: Canada's experience with the live-attenuated influenza vaccine.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2021Article
- Influenza in Children.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2021Review
- Successes and Failures of the Live-attenuated Influenza Vaccine: Can We Do Better?Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020Article
- Better influenza vaccines: an industry perspective.Journal of biomedical science · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canada and the USA differ in their recommendations for the use of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). The Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) continues to recommend LAIV as one of the influenza vaccines available for use in children 2 to 17 years of age. The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) made an interim recommendation against the use of LAIV for the 2016 to 2017 influenza season in response to low LAIV effectiveness observed in the USA during the 2013 to 2014 to 2015 to 2016 seasons. The recommendation has been continued for the 2017 to 2018 season. In response, NACI undertook a review of available LAIV effectiveness data in children and adolescents from Canada, the USA and a number of European countries. This commentary by Canada's Chief Public Health Officer summarizes the findings of that review and provides the rationale for Canada's current continued recommendation for LAIV use.
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.