SynthesisScientific reports2022
A meta-analysis: the efficacy and effectiveness of polypeptide vaccines protect pigs from foot and mouth disease.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of polypeptide, virus-like particles, and viral vector vaccines for foot-and-mouth disease (2020-2025).Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of serotype O foot-and-mouth disease vaccines.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis on the potency of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in different animal models.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Foot-and-mouth disease: genomic and proteomic structure, antigenic sites, serotype relationships, immune evasion, recent vaccine development strategies, and future perspectives.Veterinary research · 2025Review
- Foot-and-mouth disease virus-like particle vaccine incorporating dominant T and B cell epitopes: enhanced immune response in piglets with CD154 molecules.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Use of virus-like particles and nanoparticle-based vaccines for combating picornavirus infections.Veterinary research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The protective effects of peptides on pigs are controversial. In this study, meta-analysis was used to analyze the protective immune response of peptides. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure, PubMed, Wanfang Data, Cochrane Library, Embase, and gray literature sources were searched for FMDV articles published from the inception of the databases to March 2022. Of the 1403 articles obtained, 14 were selected using inclusion criteria. The experimental data on polypeptide vaccines were analyzed using Microsoft Office Home and Student 2019 Software. From the results, polypeptide vaccine doses (PPVDs) ≤ 1 mg offered protection against FMDV in 69.41% pigs lower than World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) standard (75%, 12/16). PPVDs ≥ 2 mg provided protection against FMDV in 97.22% pigs. When the two groups were compared directly, PPVDs ≥ 2 mg (93.75%) was higher than PPVDs ≤ 1 mg (63.16%). PPVDs ≤ 1 mg provided protection 56% pigs and the inactivated vaccine was 93.33% in direct comparison. In conclusion, PPVDs has a dose-dependent protective effect on pigs and PPVDs ≤ 1 mg group was lower than the inactivated vaccines group.
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.