Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38810703›Full record

ReviewAdvanced drug delivery reviews2024

A comprehensive comparison of DNA and RNA vaccines.

Chunxi Wang, Fan Yuan

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced drug delivery reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing 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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Development of mRNA vaccines against herpes zoster.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Extracellular vesicles are key mediators for direct antigen transport to draining lymph nodes.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Chunxi WangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States.
Fan YuanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27705, United States. Electronic address: fyuan@duke.edu.

Funding

Chemically Assisted Electrotransfer of DNAR35GM145362 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI FAN YUAN · 2022 to 2026
$2.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM145362
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nucleic acid technology has revolutionized vaccine development, enabling rapid design and production of RNA and DNA vaccines for prevention and treatment of diseases. The successful deployment of mRNA and plasmid DNA vaccines against COVID-19 has further validated the technology. At present, mRNA platform is prevailing due to its higher efficacy, while DNA platform is undergoing rapid evolution because it possesses unique advantages that can potentially overcome the problems associated with the mRNA platform. To help understand the recent performances of the two vaccine platforms and recognize their clinical potentials in the future, this review compares the advantages and drawbacks of mRNA and DNA vaccines that are currently known in the literature, in terms of development timeline, financial cost, ease of distribution, efficacy, safety, and regulatory approval of products. Additionally, the review discusses the ongoing clinical trials, strategies for improvement, and alternative designs of RNA and DNA platforms for vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesmRNA VaccinesVaccines, DNAAnimalsHumansSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesmRNA VaccinesVaccines, DNACancer vaccineCOVID-19Infectious diseaseNucleic acid vaccine

Identifiers

PMID38810703
PMCPMC11181159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.