Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31514407›Full record

ReviewVaccines2019

The Cellular Immune Response to Rabies Vaccination: A Systematic Review.

Lisanne A Overduin, Jacques J M van Dongen, Leonardus G Visser

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lisanne A OverduinDepartment of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333ZA Leiden, The Netherlands. L.A.Overduin@lumc.nl.
Jacques J M van DongenDepartment of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333ZA Leiden, The Netherlands. J.J.M.van_Dongen@lumc.nl.
Leonardus G VisserDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333ZA Leiden, The Netherlands. L.G.Visser@lumc.nl.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effectiveness of rabies vaccines is conventionally determined by serological testing. In addition to this assessment of humoral immunity, cellular immunity could help assess effectiveness and protection through a broad range of parameters. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review all literature on the kinetics and composition of the cellular immune response to rabies vaccination in humans. A total of 1360 studies were identified in an extensive literature search. Twenty studies were selected for inclusion. In a primary response, plasma cells are detectable from day 7 to day 14, peaking at day 10. Memory B-cells appear from day 10 up to at least day 28. After revaccination, natural killer (NK) cells are the first detectable cellular parameters. Further research is required to assess cellular parameters in relation to long-term (serological) immunity. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under registration number CRD42019134416.

Indexed as

B-lymphocytescellular immunityimmunological memoryrabiesrabies vaccinesystematic reviewT-lymphocytesvaccination

Identifiers

PMID31514407
PMCPMC6790004
OpenAlexW2972587683

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.