Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36248796›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2022

Efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of herpes zoster vaccine in the immunocompetent and immunocompromised subjects: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yue Xia, Xue Zhang, Liuren Zhang, Chuanxi Fu

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Vaccines for preventing infections in adults with solid tumours.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yue XiaInstitute of Infectious Disease and Vaccine, School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Xue ZhangInstitute of Infectious Disease and Vaccine, School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Liuren ZhangInstitute of Infectious Disease and Vaccine, School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Chuanxi FuInstitute of Infectious Disease and Vaccine, School of Public Health, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Zhejiang Chinese Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) and zoster vaccine live (ZVL) in immunocompetent and immunocompromised subjects. Methods: Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases (up to Jan 2022) were searched to identify English articles. Search terms included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, herpes zoster, RZV, ZVL. Study Selection: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vaccine efficacy and safety and observational studies assessing vaccine effectiveness (after a vaccine was approved for marketing) were included. Data Extraction: Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and checked the each other results. Results: Seventeen RCTs and 19 cohort studies were included. Among immunocompetent subjects, RZV was superior to ZVL at wide intervals (relative vaccine efficacy: 84%, 95% CI: 53%-95%; relative vaccine effectiveness: 49%, 95% CI: 21%-67%), across genders and subjects aged ≥ 60 years. Among immunocompromised subjects, RZV was superior to placebo in terms of vaccine efficacy (60%, 95% CI: 49%-69%). There was no difference between ZVL and placebo in those with selected immunosuppressive conditions. RZV was 45% (95% CI: 30%-59%) superior to ZVL in real-world practice. Compared with placebo, adverse events related to RZV were primarily related to injection-site and systemic, and RZV did not increase the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) or death. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups with and without immunosuppression. Conclusions: Both RZV and ZVL can reduce the risk of herpes zoster in both immunocompetent and immunocompromised subjects. RZV was well-tolerated in the study population and demonstrated stronger protection than ZVL. Systematic review registration: Prospero CRD42022310495.

Indexed as

Herpes ZosterHerpes Zoster VaccineHerpesvirus 3, HumanHumansVaccines, SyntheticHerpes Zoster VaccineVaccines, Syntheticimmunocompetentimmunocompromisednetwork meta-analysisrecombinant zoster vaccinezoster vaccine live

Identifiers

PMID36248796
PMCPMC9561817
OpenAlexW4298143769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.