ArticleVeterinary sciences2022
The Protective Efficacy of an Inactivated Vaccine against
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Construction of a Mutant Library ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- A standardized, genome-guided MLST scheme forJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Research progress onFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Polymeric nanocarrier-based adjuvants to enhance a locally produced mucosal coryza vaccine in chicken.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Infectious coryza (IC) is an acute respiratory disease caused by Avibacterium paragallinarum (Av. paragallinarum). In recent years, there have been frequent outbreaks of IC in chickens vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine, causing huge losses to the poultry industry. In this study, the protective efficacy of the trivalent inactivated IC vaccine (PT Medion Farma Jaya) against the field isolates of three serovars of Av. paragallinarum was verified. After vaccination, the hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers in double-vaccinated groups (A2, B2, and C2) were higher than those in single-vaccinated groups (A1, B1, and C1). The highest antibody titer was 213.1 at 3 weeks after the booster vaccination in group A2. Consistent with the trend in hemagglutination inhibition antibody titers, the protective efficacy of double vaccination was better than that of single vaccination. The clinical symptoms and pathological changes were alleviated, or the bacterial shedding was significantly reduced with double vaccination after challenge with field isolates of three serovars (p < 0.05). In particular, the chickens with double vaccination showed no clinical symptoms, pathological changes, or bacterial shedding after challenge by the serovar C strain. There was no significant difference in body weight and egg production between the double-vaccinated groups and the negative control group (p > 0.05). Therefore, we recommend that the commercial IC vaccine should be double-vaccinated in clinical applications.
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.