Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33086187›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in virology2020

Dengue vaccine development by the year 2020: challenges and prospects.

Annelies Wilder-Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in virology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. China's public health initiatives for climate change adaptation.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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

1 author.

Annelies Wilder-SmithLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK; Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: anneliesws@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The first licensed dengue vaccine led to considerable controversy, and to date, no dengue vaccine is in widespread use. All three leading dengue vaccine candidates are live attenuated vaccines, with the main difference between them being the type of backbone and the extent of chimerization. While CYD-TDV (the first licensed dengue vaccine) does not include non-structural proteins of dengue, TAK-003 contains the dengue virus serotype 2 backbone, and the Butantan/Merck vaccine contains three full-genomes of the four dengue virus serotypes. While dengue-primed individuals can already benefit from vaccination against all four serotypes with the first licensed dengue vaccine CYD-TDV, the need for dengue-naive population has not yet been met. To improve tetravalent protection, sequential vaccination should be considered in addition to a heterologous prime-boost approach.

Indexed as

AnimalsDengueDengue VaccinesDengue VirusDrug DevelopmentHumansDengue Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID33086187
PMCPMC7568693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.