Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31116691›Full record

ReviewHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2019

West Nile virus vaccines - current situation and future directions.

Sebastian Ulbert

Open access · hybridAbstract 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 64 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Assessment of the effectiveness of West Nile virus screening by analysing suspected positive donations among blood donors, Germany, 2020 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  16. West Nile virus unmasked: from gene variability to future challenges.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

4 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sebastian UlbertFraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology, Department of Immunology , Leipzig , Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5910-3643
Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

West Nile virus (WNV) is a widely spread human pathogenic arthropod-borne virus. It can lead to severe, sometimes fatal, neurological disease. Over the last two decades, several vaccine candidates for the protection of humans from WNV have been developed. Some technologies were transferred into clinical testing, but these approaches have not yet led to a licensed product. This review summarizes the current status of a human WNV vaccine and discusses reasons for the lack of clinically advanced product candidates. It also discusses the problem of immunological cross-reactivity between flaviviruses and how it can be addressed during vaccine development.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, ViralClinical Trials as TopicCross ReactionsHumansViral Envelope ProteinsWest Nile FeverWest Nile virusWest Nile Virus VaccinesAntibodies, ViralViral Envelope ProteinsWest Nile Virus VaccinesantibodiesflavivirusvaccinesWest Nile virus

Identifiers

PMID31116691
PMCPMC6816401
OpenAlexW2944958269

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.