Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31455279›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2019

Systematic review of dengue vaccine efficacy.

Lucia Teresa Côrtes da Silveira, Bernardo Tura, Marisa Santos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Dengue vaccine: a hidden risk to Aedes aegypti control in Brazil.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Evidence map of strategies for preventing and controllingRevista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025
    Review
  7. Mapping climate change-driven epidemics.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025
    Article
  8. Seroprevalence of Zika virus and dengue virus infections in migrants in Italy.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors.

Lucia Teresa Côrtes da SilveiraFire Department/Rio de Janeiro State and Professor of medicine at Unigranrio, NATS - Rua das Laranjeiras 374/ 5° andar CEP 22240-004, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. luteco61@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3272-3911
Bernardo TuraBiostatistics and Modelling/ Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Marisa SantosPHD Epidemiology, Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDengue is an arbovirus that has rapidly spread worldwide, and the incidence of dengue has greatly increased in recent decades. The actual numbers of dengue cases are underreported, and many cases are not classified correctly. Recent estimates indicate that 390 million dengue infections occur per year (95% CI, 284-528 million), of which 96 million (67-136 million) are symptomatic infections of any severity. One of the goals of the World Health Organization is to reduce dengue mortality by 50% by the year 2020. The use of a vaccine can be an important strategy to achieve this goal. Vaccines for dengue are in various stages of development; in Brazil, only one commercial formulation is available (CYD-TDV), which was developed by Sanofi Pasteur.

methodsTo evaluate the efficacy of Dengue vaccine, a systematic review with a meta-analysis was conducted using randomized controlled clinical trials published between 2000 and 2017 that were identified in the MEDLINE databases via PubMed, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. The selection was performed by two reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

resultsSeven clinical trials were included, with a total of 36,371 participants (66,511 person-years) between the ages of 2 and 45 years. The meta-analysis using the random-effects model estimated the efficacy of the vaccine at 44%, with a range from 25 to 59% and high heterogeneity (I

conclusionsCompared with other commercially available vaccines, the dengue vaccine showed poor efficacy.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBrazilChildChild, PreschoolDengueDengue VaccinesHumansMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSerogroupDengue VaccinesDengueDengue vaccinesDengue virusHealth technology assessmentSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31455279
PMCPMC6712597

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.