Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34107891›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2021

Two-dose varicella vaccine effectiveness in China: a meta-analysis and evidence quality assessment.

Zhujiazi Zhang, Luodan Suo, Jingbin Pan, Dan Zhao, Li Lu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Zhujiazi ZhangDepartment of Immunization and Prevention, Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Beijing Research Center for Preventive Medicine, He Ping Li Zhong Jie No.16, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100013, China.
Luodan SuoDepartment of Immunization and Prevention, Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Beijing Research Center for Preventive Medicine, He Ping Li Zhong Jie No.16, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100013, China.
Jingbin PanDepartment of Immunization and Prevention, Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Beijing Research Center for Preventive Medicine, He Ping Li Zhong Jie No.16, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100013, China.
Dan ZhaoDepartment of Immunization and Prevention, Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Beijing Research Center for Preventive Medicine, He Ping Li Zhong Jie No.16, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100013, China.
Li LuDepartment of Immunization and Prevention, Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Beijing Research Center for Preventive Medicine, He Ping Li Zhong Jie No.16, Dongcheng District, Beijing, 100013, China. lulibj@sina.com.

Funding

Beijing Natural Science Foundation L202008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objectives of this review were to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the two-dose varicella vaccine for healthy children in China and explore the application of the approach of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in observational studies on VE.

methodsWe searched for observational studies on two-dose varicella VE for children in China aged 1-12 years that were published from 1997 to 2019, and assessed the quality of each study using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used meta-analysis models to obtain the pooled two-dose VE, and the studies were divided into subgroups and analysed according to whether or not it was an outbreak investigation and its NOS score. The quality of evidence of VEs were rated by approach of the GRADE system.

resultsA total of 12 studies and 87,196 individuals were included. The pooled two-dose VE was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 69-97%). The VE of outbreak studies (87% [95% CI: 76-93%]) was lower than non-outbreak studies (99% [95% CI: 98-99%]). There was no significant difference in VEs by different NOS quality. The quality of the evidence assessment of pooled two-dose VE was "low", which was rated down by one category in limitations and publication bias respectively and rated up by two category in large effect. The quality of evidence assessment in subgroup of NOS score ≥ 7 was "moderate".

conclusionsThe VE of two-dose varicella vaccine is relatively high in preventing varicella, and is recommended for countries which need further control for varicella. However, higher quality evidence is needed as a supplement for stronger recommendations. The approach of GRADE could be applied for rating the quality of evidence in observational study.

Indexed as

GRADE ApproachObservational Studies as TopicChickenpoxChickenpox VaccineChildChild, PreschoolChinaDisease OutbreaksHumansInfantChickenpox VaccineGRADEMeta-analysisVaccine effectivenessVaricella vaccine

Identifiers

PMID34107891
PMCPMC8188742

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.