Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32365729›Full record

ReviewMicroorganisms2020

Current State of Anthrax Vaccines and Key R&D Gaps Moving Forward.

Adam Clark, Daniel N Wolfe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microorganisms, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Anthrax: A narrative review.New microbes and new infections · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Human Anthrax: Update of the Diagnosis and Treatment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Biodefence research two decades on: worth the investment?The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2021
    Review
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

2 authors.

Adam ClarkDepartment of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Washington, DC, USA.
Daniel N WolfeDepartment of Health and Human Services, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A licensed anthrax vaccine has been available for pre-exposure prophylaxis in the United States since 1970, and it was approved for use as a post-exposure prophylaxis, in combination with antibiotic treatment, in 2015. A variety of other vaccines are available in other nations, approved under various regulatory frameworks. However, investments in anthrax vaccines continue due to the severity of the threat posed by this bacterium, as both a naturally occurring pathogen and the potential for use as a bioweapon. In this review, we will capture the current landscape of anthrax vaccine development, focusing on those lead candidates in clinical development. Although approved products are available, a robust pipeline of candidate vaccines are still in development to try to address some of the key research gaps in the anthrax vaccine field. We will then highlight some of the most pressing needs in terms of anthrax vaccine research.

Indexed as

anthracisanthraxBacillusvaccine

Identifiers

PMID32365729
PMCPMC7285291

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.