SynthesisViruses2023
Systematic Review of Equine Influenza A Virus Vaccine Studies and Meta-Analysis of Vaccine Efficacy.
Synthesis in Viruses, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Probiotics as Potential Enhancers of Veterinary Vaccines.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Antibody Titres to StrangvacVaccines · 2026Article
- Combined network pharmacology and biological verification to investigate anti-influenza A virus effect and potential mechanism of Pudilan Xiaoyan Oral Liquid.Chinese herbal medicines · 2026Article
- Research publications and global manufacture of veterinary vaccines against avian influenza A (2019-2023).Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Vaccines against equine influenza have been available since the late 1960s, but outbreaks continue to occur periodically, affecting both vaccinated and unvaccinated animals. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy of vaccines against influenza A virus in horses (equine IAV). For this, PubMed, CAB abstracts, and Web of Science were searched for controlled trials of equine IAV vaccines published up to December 2020. Forty-three articles reporting equine IAV vaccination and challenge studies in previously naïve equids using an appropriate comparison group were included in a qualitative analysis of vaccine efficacy. A value for vaccine efficacy (VE) was calculated as the percentage reduction in nasopharyngeal virus shedding detected by virus isolation in embryonated hens' eggs from 38 articles. Among 21 studies involving commercial vaccines, the mean VE was 50.03% (95% CI: 23.35-76.71%), ranging from 0 to 100%. Among 17 studies reporting the use of experimental vaccines, the mean VE was 40.37% (95% CI: 19.64-62.44), and the range was again 0-100%. Overall, complete protection from virus shedding was achieved in five studies. In conclusion, although commercially available vaccines can, in some circumstances, offer complete protection from infection, the requirement for frequent vaccination in the field to limit virus shedding and hence transmission is apparent. Although most studies were conducted by a few centres, a lack of consistent study design made comparisons difficult.
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.