ArticleVeterinary world2022
Immunogenicity of a newly developed vaccine against
Article in Veterinary world, 2022. 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.
- Enhancing Rabbit Welfare in Intensive Production Systems: A Review.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2026Review
- Toxin genotypes and antimicrobial resistance profiles ofVeterinary world · 2026Article
- Article
- A lipid nanoparticle encapsulated CPA-CTD mRNA vaccine provides protection againstFrontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Review of advances in molecular structure and biological function ofCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Materials and Methods: The vaccine was formulated of its constituents for 1 h. Each milliliter of the final vaccine product contained alpha toxoid 15 lecithovitellinase activity (Lv) by adding (0.375 mL containing 40 Lv) and approximately 0.2 mL from 3% concentrated aluminum hydroxide gel, <0.001% W/V thiomersal, <0.05% W/V formaldehyde, and nearly 0.425 mL phosphate-buffered saline (pH 7.2). The vaccine efficacy was evaluated in rabbits and cattle by performing potency, stability, and safety tests. Results: The vaccine produced approximately 8.8 and 4.9 IU/mL neutralizing antibodies in rabbits and cattle, respectively. These concentrations were higher than the lowest concentration recommended by various international protocols and the United States Department of Agriculture by 2.20-fold in rabbits and 1.23-fold in cattle. Interestingly, the formulated vaccine enhanced immune responses by 1.80-fold in rabbits compared with that in cattle; the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). The vaccine was stable for 30 months. In vaccinated rabbits, the body temperature slightly increased temporarily during the first 10 h of vaccination; however, the temperature difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: This study describes a manufacturing process to obtain sufficient amounts of a vaccine against
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.