ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Effectiveness and safety of tetanus vaccine administration by intramuscular vs. subcutaneous route in anticoagulated patients: Randomized clinical trial in primary care.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Design: Prospective, double-blind clinical trial comparing tetanus-diphtheria vaccine administration routes, intramuscular (IM) vs. subcutaneous (SC) injection, in patients with oral anticoagulants. ISRCTN69942081. Study population: Patients treated with oral anticoagulants, 15 health centers, Vigo (Spain). Sample size, 117 in each group. Outcome variables: Safety analysis: systemic reactions and, at the vaccine administration site, erythematic, swelling, hematoma, granuloma, pain.Effectiveness analysis: differences in tetanus toxoid antibody titers.Independent variables: route, sex, age, baseline serology, number of doses administered. Analysis: Following the CONSORT guidelines, we performed an intention-to-treat analysis. We conducted a descriptive study of the variables included in both groups (117 in each group) and a bivariate analysis. Fewer than 5% of missing values. Imputation in baseline and final serology with the median was performed. Lost values were assumed to be values missing at random. We conducted a descriptive study of the variables and compared routes. For safety, multivariate logistic regression was applied, with each safety criterion as outcome and the independent variables. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. For effectiveness, a generalized additive mixed model, with the difference between final and initial antibody titers as outcome. Due to the bimodal distribution of the outcome, the normal mixture fitting with gamlssMX was used. All statistical analyses were performed with the gamlss.mx and texreg packages of the R free software environment. Results: A previously published protocol was used across the 6-year study period. The breakdown by sex and route showed: 102 women and 132 men; and 117 IM and 117 SC, with one dose administered in over 80% of participants. There were no differences between groups in any independent variable. The second and third doses administered were not analyzed, due to the low number of cases. In terms of safety, there were no severe general reactions. Locally, significant adjusted differences were observed: in pain, by sex (male, OR: 0.39) and route (SC, OR: 0.55); in erythema, by sex (male, OR: 0.34) and route (SC, OR: 5.21); and in swelling, by sex (male, OR: 0.37) and route (SC, OR: 2.75). In terms of effectiveness, the model selected was the one adjusted for baseline serology.
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.