Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32827481›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Global health2020

Real-world effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines, 2006-19: a literature review and meta-analysis.

Eleanor Burnett, Umesh D Parashar, Jacqueline E Tate

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

123 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 202 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eleanor BurnettDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: wwg7@cdc.gov.
Umesh D ParasharDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jacqueline E TateDivision of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince licensure in 2006, rotavirus vaccines have been introduced in more than 100 countries. The efficacy of rotavirus vaccines is variable in settings with different child mortality levels. We did an updated review of the published literature to assess the real-world effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines in a range of settings.

methodsIn this literature review and meta-analysis, we included observational, post-licensure studies of rotavirus vaccines, published from Jan 1, 2006, to Dec 31, 2019, in English, with laboratory-confirmed rotavirus as the endpoint. In addition to product-specific results for Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Rixensart, Belgium) or RotaTeq (Merck, West Point, PA, USA), we included Rotarix and RotaTeq mixed series, and non-product-specific vaccine effectiveness estimates from countries where Rotarix and RotaTeq are both available. Studies of other infant rotavirus vaccines were excluded because little or no post-licensure data were available. We fitted random-effects regression models to estimate vaccine effectiveness among children younger than 12 months and aged 12-23 months. On the basis of 2017 UNICEF mortality estimates for children younger than 5 years, countries were stratified as having low (lowest quartile), medium (second quartile), or high mortality (third and fourth quartiles).

findingsWe identified and screened 1703 articles, of which 60 studies from 32 countries were included. 31 studies were from countries with low child mortality, eight were from medium-mortality countries, and 21 were from high-mortality countries. Rotarix vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed rotavirus among children younger than 12 months old was 86% (95% CI 81-90) in low-mortality countries, 77% (66-85) in medium-mortality countries, and 63% (54-70) in high-mortality countries. Rotarix vaccine effectiveness among children aged 12-23 months was 86% (81-90) in low-mortality countries, 54% (23-73) in medium-mortality countries, and 58% (38-72) in high-mortality countries. RotaTeq vaccine effectiveness among children younger than 12 months was 86% (76-92) in low-mortality countries and 66% (51-76) in high-mortality countries. RotaTeq vaccine effectiveness among children aged 12-23 months was 84% (79-89) in low-mortality countries. There was no substantial heterogeneity (I

interpretationRotavirus vaccines were effective in preventing rotavirus diarrhoea, with higher performance in countries with lower child mortality.

fundingNone.

Indexed as

HumansLicensureObservational Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRotavirus InfectionsRotavirus VaccinesTreatment OutcomeRotavirus Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID32827481
PMCPMC8097518
OpenAlexW3055068567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.