ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2023
Impact of vaccination with different types of rotavirus vaccines on the incidence of intussusception: a randomized controlled meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rotavirus Infections: Pathophysiology, Symptoms, and Vaccination.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Rotavirus vaccination is a protective factor for adverse outcomes in primary intussusception: a single-center retrospective study.Translational pediatrics · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intussusception is a prevalent pediatric issue causing acute abdominal pain, with potential links to rotavirus vaccines. The variety of these vaccines has grown in recent years. This meta-analysis study aims to evaluate the impact of various rotavirus vaccines on intussusception incidence. Methods: We executed a thorough search across databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, leading to the selection of 15 credible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that encompass various types of rotavirus vaccines. From each study, we extracted essential details such as vaccine types and intussusception occurrences. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, conducted statistical analysis with R (version 4.2.3), determined relative risk (RR) using a random effects model, and performed a subgroup analysis for vaccines of differing brands and types. Results: We included 15 randomized controlled studies from various countries. While intussusception incidence differed between vaccinated and control groups, this difference was not statistically significant. The overall risk ratio (RR), calculated using a random effects model, was 0.81, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.53, 1.23]. This crossing 1 shows that vaccination didn't notably change disease risk. Additionally, the 0% group heterogeneity suggests consistency across studies, strengthening our conclusions. Subgroup analysis for different vaccine brands and types (RV1 (Rotarix, Rotavac, RV3-BB), RV3 (LLR3), RV5 (RotasiiL, RotaTeq), and RV6) showed no significant variation in intussusception incidence. Despite variations in RR among subgroups, these differences were not statistically significant ( Conclusions: Our study indicates that rotavirus vaccination does not significantly increase the incidence of intussusception. Despite varying impacts across different vaccine brands and types, these variations are insignificant. Given the substantial benefits outweighing the risks, promoting the use of newly developed rotavirus vaccines remains highly valuable. Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, Identifier CRD42023425279.
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.