ArticleOpen life sciences2024
Effectiveness and safety of a mumps containing vaccine in preventing laboratory-confirmed mumps cases from 2002 to 2017: A meta-analysis.
Article in Open life sciences, 2024. 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.
- Recurrent Mumps in a Fully Vaccinated Young Adult With a Prior Breakthrough Infection: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Development and characterization of the genotype F attenuated mumps candidate strains.Frontiers in immunology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emerging evidence has figured that serum conversion rate of mumps is a crucial link of mumps disease. Nevertheless, a rising number of mumps outbreaks caused our attention and studies examining the serum conversion cases were conducted in small samples previously; this meta-analysis was conducted to assess the immunogenicity and safety of a mumps containing vaccine (MuCV) before 2019. We identified a total of 17 studies from the year of 2002-2017. In the case-control studies, the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of MuCV in preventing laboratory-confirmed mumps was 68% (odds risk: 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.70) while in the cohort studies and randomised control trials, 58% (relative risk [RR]: 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69). Similar intervals of effectiveness rates were found during non-outbreak periods compared with outbreak periods (VE: 66%; RR: 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18-0.68 versus VE: 49%; RR: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.21-1.27). In addition, the MuCV group with two and three doses did not show enhanced laboratory-confirmed mumps than one dose (VE: 58%; RR: 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88 versus VE: 65%, RR: 0.35; 95% CI, 0.20-0.61) for the reason of the overlap of 95% CI. MuCV had comparable effectiveness comparing non-outbreak and outbreak period, one dose, and two or three doses. MuCV displayed acceptable adverse event profiles.
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.