Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38317888›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2024

Research progress on emulsion vaccine adjuvants.

Zhuanqing Huang, Hui Gong, Qi Sun, Jinjin Yang, Xiaochuan Yan, Fenghua Xu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Vaccine Adjuvants and Delivery Systems: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. AS01Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Next-Generation Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for Food Allergy.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Zhuanqing HuangDepartment of Ophthalmology, The No. 944 Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force of PLA, Gansu 735000, China.
Hui GongMedical School of Chinese PLA, Beijing 100853, China.
Qi SunPharmaceutical Sciences Research Division, Department of Pharmacy, Medical Supplies Centre, PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.
Jinjin YangThe Fifth medical center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100071, China.
Xiaochuan YanDepartment of Ophthalmology, The No. 944 Hospital of Joint Logistic Support Force of PLA, Gansu 735000, China.
Fenghua XuPharmaceutical Sciences Research Division, Department of Pharmacy, Medical Supplies Centre, PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination is the most cost-effective method for preventing various infectious diseases. Compared with conventional vaccines, new-generation vaccines, especially recombinant protein or synthetic peptide vaccines, are safer but less immunogenic than crude inactivated microbial vaccines. The immunogenicity of these vaccines can be enhanced using suitable adjuvants. This is the main reason why adjuvants are of great importance in vaccine development. Several novel human emulsion-based vaccine adjuvants (MF59, AS03) have been approved for clinical use. This paper reviews the research progress on emulsion-based adjuvants and focuses on their mechanism of action. An outlook can be provided for the development of emulsion-based vaccine adjuvants.

Indexed as

Emulsion-based adjuvantImmunisationVaccine

Identifiers

PMID38317888
PMCPMC10839794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.