ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2019
Influenza vaccination for all pregnant women? So far the less biased evidence does not favour it.
Review in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2019. 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.
- Review
- Influenza Vaccination of Pregnant Women and Serious Adverse Events in the Offspring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Influenza immunization during pregnancy: toward a balanced assessment of safety evidence.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Article
- Influenza vaccination in pregnancy: careful assessment confirms safety concerns for the offspring.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pregnant women are a WHO priority group for influenza vaccination, but evidence from observational studies in pregnancy is subject, among others, to the healthy-vaccinee bias, overestimating the vaccine effectiveness and safety. An USA survey adds new evidence that documents this bias. Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness and safety with RCTs. Cochrane reviews identified one RCT with "low risk of bias", in a medium-income country, with NNV 55 for mothers. Its data show an excess of local adverse effects, and a tendency to harm for serious adverse events, with uncertain or very limited protection against influenza. A subsequent larger trial in a very-low-income African country found an excess of infant serious infections plus deaths in the influenza vaccine group. Also an available previous small trial and a subsequent large one in Asian low-income countries showed in tendency more deaths in the offspring vaccine groups. Before promoting seasonal influenza vaccinations during all pregnancies, more independent trials are needed, with appropriate designs and comparators. Meanwhile, vaccination in second-third trimester could be offered communicating the uncertainties and promoting informed choices, without neglecting to promote other protective behaviors.
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.