ArticleBMJ open2019
Palivizumab and prevention of childhood respiratory syncytial viral infection: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of breakthrough infections.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionChildhood respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is a global phenomenon that can lead to fatal respiratory illness. Palivizumab is a drug that is routinely used in affluent countries as a prophylaxis against RSV infection; nevertheless, breakthrough infections are often reported. In light of new findings on potential RSV resistance to palivizumab, an up-to-date synthesis of evidence on effectiveness is needed. Furthering existing reviews, a broadened scope to better reflect effectiveness in a 'real world' clinical context is also important. This systematic review and meta-analysis will enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of palivizumab in varying populations of children. Findings from this review will inform recommendations for best practices regarding palivizumab use for childhood RSV infection as well as research priorities in RSV vaccine development. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of primary population-based studies that examine the incidence of palivizumab breakthrough infections in children, published between 1997 to present. In collaboration with a research librarian, four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) and additional sources will be searched. Study screening and quality assessment will be performed in duplicate. Data will be extracted by one reviewer, with partial and random verification by a second reviewer. The primary outcomes to assess breakthrough RSV infection will be hospitalisation, length of stay and the need for intensive care unit admission and mechanical ventilation in children receiving palivizumab. The secondary outcome will be RSV-associated mortality. We will conduct a meta-analysis using pooled effectiveness data, and include subgroup analyses by patient comorbidities and drug compliance. Sensitivity analyses for risk of bias and study design will also be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review will only include data from previously published literature and is therefore exempt from ethics approval. Final results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and presented at academic conferences and scientific meetings engaging paediatric researchers and healthcare providers. Should findings from this review necessitate updates to current clinical practice guidelines, we intend to establish a working group to engage relevant health administrators and decision makers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019122120.
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.