ReviewVeterinary sciences2022
The Effectiveness of Commercial Vaccination against
Review in Veterinary sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Influence of vaccination against infectious diseases on the carbon footprint of fattening pigs: a systematic review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Pooled it
- Examination ofVeterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- Vaccination against Lawsonia intracellularis reduced tail-biting related behaviors in a commercial pig herd.Porcine health management · 2026Article
- The Lawsonia Paradox: The Hidden Burden of Silent Disease.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A low-endotoxic Salmonella vector with dual bacterial-host promoter expression of Lawsonia intracellularis antigens elicits protective immunity in a murine model.Veterinary research · 2026Article
- Establishment of a TaqMan Quantitative Real-Time PCR for DetectingVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Porcine proliferative enteropathy: overview of disease dynamics and non-antibiotic alternatives for prevention and control strategies.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Review
- Vaccination versus antimicrobials to prevent Porcine Proliferative Enteropathy: associated costs and effects on piglets' growth, health, and serological performance.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Assessing the detection and interaction ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of commercial vaccines against PPE in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Of the 373 articles reviewed, 16 fulfilled the pre-specified inclusion criteria. Three independent reviewers extracted the data, and vaccine effectiveness was assessed using the outcomes of interest. The majority of studies had a low or unclear risk of bias as assessed using the ARRIVE guidelines. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the vaccination resulted in statistically significant reductions in bacterial fecal shedding (odds ratio, OR = 0.122, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.054−0.278) and mortality rate (risk ratio, RR = 0.199; 95% CI, 0.066−0.605). Furthermore, ADWG was significantly increased in the vaccinated pigs compared to the unvaccinated controls (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.606, 95% CI 0.243−0.969). In the subgroup analysis, the production phase and study type significantly influenced the effect size (p < 0.1). The Egger’s regression test showed no evidence of publication bias (p > 0.1). The effectiveness of commercially available vaccines against PPE-related weight loss, fecal shedding, and mortality suggests that the vaccines may help control PPE on affected swine farms.
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.