Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37061527›Full record

ReviewNPJ vaccines2023

Is new dengue vaccine efficacy data a relief or cause for concern?

Stephen J Thomas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

79 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The Links Between Dengue Virus, Climate and Climate Change.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Dengue and severe dengue.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Stephen J ThomasSUNY Upstate Medical University, Institute for Global Health and Translational Sciences, Syracuse, NY, USA. thomstep@upstate.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8368-7682

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dengue is a major global public health problem requiring a safe and efficacious vaccine as the foundation of a comprehensive countermeasure strategy. Despite decades of attempts, the world has a single dengue vaccine licensed in numerous countries, but restrictions and conditions of its use have deterred uptake. Recently, clinical efficacy data has been revealed for two additional dengue vaccine candidates and the data appears encouraging. In this perspective I discuss dengue, the complexities of dengue vaccine development, early development setbacks, and how the latest data from the field may be cause for measured optimism. Finally, I provide some perspectives on evaluating dengue vaccine performance and how the pursuit of the perfect dengue vaccine may prevent advancement of vaccines which are good enough.

Identifiers

PMID37061527
PMCPMC10105158

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.