ReviewClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2021
Testing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy through deliberate natural viral exposure.
Review in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colorectal cancer and tumor vaccines (Review).Oncology letters · 2026Review
- Some principles for using epidemiologic study results to parameterize transmission models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Do coronavirus vaccine challenge trials have a distinctive generalisability problem?Journal of medical ethics · 2022Article
- A new day for human challenge trials?Trends in molecular medicine · 2022Article
- The SARS-CoV-2 mutations versus vaccine effectiveness: New opportunities to new challenges.Journal of infection and public health · 2022Review
- Prioritizing second-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through low-dosage challenge studies.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA vaccine trial with a conventional challenge design can be very fast once it starts, but it requires a long prior process, in part to grow and standardize challenge virus in the laboratory. This detracts somewhat from its overall promise for accelerated efficacy testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine candidates, and from the ability of developing countries and small companies to conduct it.
aimsWe set out to identify a challenge design that avoids this part of the long prior process. SOURCES: Literature in trial design (including a proof of concept flu challenge trial by B. Killingley et al.), vaccinology, medical ethics, and various aspects of COVID response. CONTENT: A challenge design with deliberate natural viral exposure avoids the need to grow culture. This new design is described and compared both to a conventional challenge design and to a conventional phase III field trial. In comparison, the proposed design has ethical, scientific, and feasibility strengths. IMPLICATIONS: The proposed new design should be considered for future vaccine trials.
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.