Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30632885›Full record

ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2019

Influenza vaccination for all pregnant women? So far the less biased evidence does not favour it.

Alberto Donzelli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Influenza Vaccination of Pregnant Women and Serious Adverse Events in the Offspring.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alberto DonzelliExecutive Board of the Allineare Sanità e Salute Foundation , Milano , Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4365-6814

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Pregnant PeopleAdultFemaleHumansInfantInfant DeathInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesObservational Studies as TopicPovertyPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVaccinationInfluenza VaccinesCochrane systematic reviewhealthy vaccinee biasinflammatory effectsinfluenza-like illness (ILI)Influenza vaccinationnumber needed to vaccinate (NNV)pregnant womenstage of pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID30632885
PMCPMC6773390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.