Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30963541›Full record

ReviewClinical and experimental immunology2019

Mucosal vaccines and technology.

A Miquel-Clopés, E G Bentley, J P Stewart, S R Carding

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing 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

87 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Advances inMicroorganisms · 2024
    Review
  20. Review

27 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

4 authors.

A Miquel-ClopésGut Microbes and Health Research Programme, Quadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, UK.
E G BentleyDepartment of Infection Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
J P StewartDepartment of Infection Biology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
S R CardingGut Microbes and Health Research Programme, Quadram Institute Bioscience, Norwich, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2383-9701

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/J004529/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/M011216/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/R012490/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F/000PR10355Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/F000PR10355
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an urgent and unmet need to develop effective vaccines to reduce the global burden of infectious disease in both animals and humans, and in particular for the majority of pathogens that infect via mucosal sites. Here we summarise the impediments to developing mucosal vaccines and review the new and emerging technologies aimed at overcoming the lack of effective vaccine delivery systems that is the major obstacle to developing new mucosal vaccines.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug Delivery SystemsHumansImmunity, MucosalMucous MembraneVaccinationVaccinesVaccinesbacterialmucosalvaccinesviral

Identifiers

PMID30963541
PMCPMC6468177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.