SynthesisBMJ global health2023
Immunogenicity, safety, usability and acceptability of microarray patches for vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immunogenicity, safety, usability and acceptability of microarray patches for vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ global health · 2023Pooled it
- Parents' perceived safety, usability, and acceptability of vaccination through microarray patches: A preliminary multi-national cross-sectional survey.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Aligning biopharma and academic partnerships to advance drug delivery technologies: insights from a multidisciplinary panel.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- Microneedles for Vaccination: Mechanistic Foundations, Materials Innovation, Clinical Translation, and Global Health Implementation.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Article
- Microneedles: Selected Applications for Pediatrics.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Reaching zero-dose children in conflict-affected and fragile settings in the WHO African Region: a scoping review of strategies and evidence gaps.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Age-dependent immune landscapes affect influenza vaccine effectiveness and guide precision strategies.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Advances in Drug and Vaccine Delivery for Low- and Middle-Income Healthcare Programs-The Case for Replacing Multi-Dose Vials with Prefilled Single-Dose Delivery Systems.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Achieving and sustaining measles elimination in Hong Kong, from 1967 to 2024: lessons to be learnt.BMJ global health · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Insect-specific virus platforms for arbovirus vaccine development.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Article
- The Relationship between Immunogenicity and Reactogenicity of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Using Different Delivery Methods.Vaccines · 2024Article
- A Pilot Open-Label Randomized Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Acceptability of the IntegriMedical® Needle Free Injection System versus a Conventional Needle-Based System in Healthy Volunteers, Using Normal Saline as a Placebo.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Developing and validating a scale to measure the perceptions of safety, usability and acceptability of microarray patches for vaccination: a study protocol.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroarray patches (MAPs) deliver vaccines to the epidermis and the upper dermis, where abundant immune cells reside. There are several potential benefits to using MAPs, including reduced sharps risk, thermostability, no need for reconstitution, tolerability and self-administration. We aimed to explore and evaluate the immunogenicity, safety, usability and acceptability of MAPs for vaccination.
methodsWe searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to January 2023. Eligibility criteria included all research studies in any language, which examined microarrays or microneedles intended or used for vaccination and explored immunogenicity, safety, usability or acceptability in their findings. Two reviewers conducted title and abstract screening, full-text reviewing and data extraction.
resultsTwenty-two studies were included (quantitative=15, qualitative=2 and mixed methods=5). The risk of bias was mostly low, with two studies at high risk of bias. Four clinical trials were included, three using influenza antigens and one with Japanese encephalitis delivered by MAP. A meta-analysis indicated similar or higher immunogenicity in influenza MAPs compared with needle and syringe (N&S) (standardised mean difference=10.80, 95% CI: 3.51 to 18.08, p<0.00001). There were no significant differences in immune cell function between MAPs and N&S. No serious adverse events were reported in MAPs. Erythema was more common after MAP application than N&S but was brief and well tolerated. Lower pain scores were usually reported after MAP application than N&S. Most studies found MAPs easy to use and highly acceptable among healthcare professionals, laypeople and parents.
conclusionMAPs for vaccination were safe and well tolerated and evoked similar or enhanced immunogenicity than N&S, but further research is needed. Vaccine uptake may be increased using MAPs due to less pain, enhanced thermostability, layperson and self-administration. MAPs could benefit at-risk groups and low and middle-income countries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022323026.
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.