Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38441731›Full record

ArticleInfection2024

Malaria vaccine efficacy, safety, and community perception in Africa: a scoping review of recent empirical studies.

Muhammad Chutiyami, Priya Saravanakumar, Umar Muhammad Bello, Dauda Salihu, Khadijat Adeleye, Mustapha Adam Kolo, Kabiru Kasamu Dawa, Dathini Hamina, Pratibha Bhandari, Surajo Kamilu Sulaiman and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Infection, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
15.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Perceptions and Acceptability ofHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Muhammad ChutiyamiSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. muhammad.chutiyami@uts.edu.au.
Priya SaravanakumarSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Umar Muhammad BelloDepartment of Physiotherapy and Paramedicine, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Dauda SalihuCollege of Nursing, Jouf University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia.
Khadijat AdeleyeCollege of Nursing, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, 01003, USA.
Mustapha Adam KoloDepartment of Geography, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Kabiru Kasamu DawaSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Education, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK.
Dathini HaminaDepartment of Nursing Science, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Pratibha BhandariSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Surajo Kamilu SulaimanDepartment of Physiotherapy, Tishk International University, Erbil, Iraq.
Jenny SimWHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Development, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
University of Technology Sydney · AUUniversity of Maiduguri · NGGlasgow Caledonian University · GBJouf University · SATishk International University · IQUniversity of Bedfordshire · GBUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst · US

Funding

University of Technology Sydney 2023 Open Access Agreement
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe review summarizes the recent empirical evidence on the efficacy, safety, and community perception of malaria vaccines in Africa.

methodsAcademic Search Complete, African Journals Online, CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo, and two gray literature sources were searched in January 2023, and updated in June 2023. Relevant studies published from 2012 were included. Studies were screened, appraised, and synthesized in line with the review aim. Statistical results are presented as 95% Confidence Intervals and proportions/percentages.

resultsSixty-six (N = 66) studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the vaccines identified, overall efficacy at 12 months was highest for the R21 vaccine (N = 3) at 77.0%, compared to the RTS,S vaccine (N = 15) at 55%. The efficacy of other vaccines was BK-SE36 (11.0-50.0%, N = 1), ChAd63/MVA ME-TRAP (- 4.7-19.4%, N = 2), FMP2.1/AS02A (7.6-9.9%, N = 1), GMZ2 (0.6-60.0%, N = 5), PfPZ (20.0-100.0%, N = 5), and PfSPZ-CVac (24.8-33.6%, N = 1). Injection site pain and fever were the most common adverse events (N = 26), while febrile convulsion (N = 8) was the most reported, vaccine-related Serious Adverse Event. Mixed perceptions of malaria vaccines were found in African communities (N = 17); awareness was generally low, ranging from 11% in Tanzania to 60% in Nigeria (N = 9), compared to willingness to accept the vaccines, which varied from 32.3% in Ethiopia to 96% in Sierra Leone (N = 15). Other issues include availability, logistics, and misconceptions.

conclusionMalaria vaccines protect against malaria infection in varying degrees, with severe side effects rarely occurring. Further research is required to improve vaccine efficacy and community involvement is needed to ensure successful widespread use in African communities.

Indexed as

MalariaMalaria VaccinesAfricaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansVaccine EfficacyMalaria VaccinesAfricaEfficacyMalaria vaccinePerceptionSafety

Identifiers

PMID38441731
PMCPMC11499420
OpenAlexW4392456256

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.