ArticleVaccine2020
Comparative safety of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccination in patients with end-stage renal disease.
Article in Vaccine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relative Efficacy, Effectiveness and Safety of Newer and/or Enhanced Seasonal Influenza Vaccines for the Prevention of Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in Individuals Aged 18 years and Over: Update of a Systematic Review.Reviews in medical virology · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of Niaoduqing granules in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Different Influenza Vaccine Formulations among Patients Undergoing Maintenance Hemodialysis.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026Article
- Uptake of Newly Licensed Influenza Vaccine Formulations Among Patients Receiving Chronic Hemodialysis During the 2010/2011 to 2021/2022 Influenza Seasons.Kidney medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Safety of Different Antibiotic Regimens for the Treatment of Outpatient Community-Acquired Pneumonia Among Otherwise Healthy Adults.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Chronic Diseases and Influenza Vaccines.Vaccines · 2025Review
- Comparative Safety and Attributable Healthcare Expenditures Following Inappropriate Versus Appropriate Outpatient Antibiotic Prescriptions Among Adults With Upper Respiratory Infections.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-dose influenza vaccine (HDV) is an alternative vaccination strategy in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), though the safety of HDV has not been evaluated in this population. The objective of this study was to estimate the relative occurrence of adverse vaccine reactions in patients with ESRD following vaccination with HDV compared with standard-dose influenza vaccine (SDV).
methodsUsing data from the United States Renal Data System, we identified patients with ESRD aged ≥ 65 years at influenza vaccination during yearly influenza seasons from 2010 through 2016. Patients were followed after vaccination to observe serious (anaphylaxis, angioedema, seizure, encephalopathy, Guillain-Barré syndrome [GBS], and short-term, all-cause mortality) and milder (urticaria/hives, rash, pain in limb, cellulitis, myalgia/myositis, fever, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and syncope) adverse events. Propensity score-weighted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HDV versus SDV were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsOf 520,876 vaccinations observed (mean age = 74.7 years at vaccination; 63% white race), 7.4% were HDV. For serious events, the weighted HRs were null for seizure, encephalopathy, and mortality and inestimable due to too few cases for anaphylaxis, angioedema, and GBS. For milder vaccine reactions, the weighted HRs demonstrated generally increased risks in the HDV group, including rash (HR = 1.86; 95% CI, 1.34-2.57), diarrhea (HR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50), pain in limb (HR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34), and myalgia/myositis (HR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30).
conclusionsThe risks of serious adverse events were low and similar between treatment groups; however, HDV recipients had increased risks of several milder adverse events compared with SDV recipients, consistent with clinical trial findings in the general population of older adults. These results add important information to inform the risk-benefit tradeoff of the use of HDV versus SDV in patients with ESRD.
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.