ArticleBMJ open2018
Effects of vaccines in patients with sickle cell disease: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited haematological disorder caused by a single point mutation (Glub6Val) that promotes polymerisation of haemoglobin S and sickling of erythrocytes. Inflammation, haemolysis, microvascular obstruction and organ damage characterise the highly variable clinical expression of SCD. People with SCD are at increased risk of severe infections, hence the need for vaccination against common disease-causing organisms in this population. We aim to review the evidence on the efficacy and safety of vaccines in people with SCD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present systematic review will examine the current data as indexed in PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE and EBSCOHost. We will consult Strategic Advisory Group of Experts practice statements, conference abstracts, reference lists of relevant articles, WHO ICTRP trial registry and experts in the field. Two authors will independently screen search outputs, select studies, extract data and assess risk of bias; resolving discrepancies by discussion and consensus between the two authors or arbitration by a third author when necessary. We will perform a meta-analysis for clinically homogenous studies. Evidence from clinically diverse studies will be aggregated using narrative synthesis of the findings. In either case, we will use the GRADE approach to assess the strength of the available evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study draws on data that are readily available in the public domain, hence no formal ethical review and approval is required. The findings of this review will be disseminated through conference presentations and a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084051.
Indexed as
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.