ArticleNature communications2019
Bridging the gap between efficacy trials and model-based impact evaluation for new tuberculosis vaccines.
Article in Nature communications, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Model-based impact evaluation of new tuberculosis vaccines in aging populations under different modeling scenarios: the case of China.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Addressing mechanism bias in model-based impact forecasts of new tuberculosis vaccines.Nature communications · 2023Article
- BCG vaccination strategies against tuberculosis: updates and perspectives.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Tuberculosis (TB), given the complexity of its transmission dynamics, observations of reduced epidemiological risk associated with preventive interventions can be difficult to translate into mechanistic interpretations. Specifically, in clinical trials of vaccine efficacy, a readout of protection against TB disease can be mapped to multiple dynamical mechanisms, an issue that has been overlooked so far. Here, we describe this limitation and its effect on model-based evaluations of vaccine impact. Furthermore, we propose a methodology to analyze efficacy trials that circumvents it, leveraging a combination of compartmental models and stochastic simulations. Using our approach, we can disentangle the different possible mechanisms of action underlying vaccine protection effects against TB, conditioned to trial design, size, and duration. Our results unlock a deeper interpretation of the data emanating from efficacy trials of TB vaccines, which renders them more interpretable in terms of transmission models and translates into explicit recommendations for vaccine developers.
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.