ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2021
Analysis of the adverse events following immunization with inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine from 2018 to 2020 in Zhejiang province, with a comparison to trivalent influenza vaccine.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize reports to the national adverse event following immunization surveillance system (NAEFISS) following inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIV) in Zhejiang province from 2018 to 2020.
methodsWe analyzed adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reports following QIV, with a comparison, with the AEFI reports following inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine (TIV). Reporting rates of AEFI were calculated by age, severity of AEFI, categories of AEFI, and reaction categories. The data mining algorithm used in this study was reporting odds ratio (ROR). A value of ROR‑1.96SE >1 (standard error [SE]) was considered as positive signal. These reporting rates between vaccine types were compared through chi-square tests.
resultsNAEFISS received 514 AEFI reports following QIV and 536 reports following TIV, with a reporting rate of 13.66/100,000 100,000 doses/100,000 doses (
conclusionThe present analysis did not identify any new/unexpected safety concerns. We suggested that NAEFISS continue to monitor the safety of QIV.
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.