Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38907021›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Microbiology2024

Pertussis vaccines, epidemiology and evolution.

Matthieu Domenech de Cellès, Pejman Rohani

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Matthieu Domenech de CellèsInfectious Disease Epidemiology Group, Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9302-4858
Pejman RohaniOdum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA. rohani@uga.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7221-3801

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pertussis, which is caused by Bordetella pertussis, has plagued humans for at least 800 years, is highly infectious and can be fatal in the unvaccinated, especially very young infants. Although the rollout of whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccines in the 1940s and 1950s was associated with a drastic drop in incidence, concerns regarding the reactogenicity of wP vaccines led to the development of a new generation of safer, acellular (aP) vaccines that have been adopted mainly in high-income countries. Over the past 20 years, some countries that boast high aP coverage have experienced a resurgence in pertussis, which has led to substantial debate over the basic immunology, epidemiology and evolutionary biology of the bacterium. Controversy surrounds the duration of natural immunity and vaccine-derived immunity, the ability of vaccines to prevent transmission and severe disease, and the impact of evolution on evading vaccine immunity. Resolving these issues is made challenging by incomplete detection of pertussis cases, the absence of a serological marker of immunity, modest sequencing of the bacterial genome and heterogeneity in diagnostic methods of surveillance. In this Review, we lay out the complexities of contemporary pertussis and, where possible, propose a parsimonious explanation for apparently incongruous observations.

Indexed as

Bordetella pertussisPertussis VaccineWhooping CoughEvolution, MolecularHumansPertussis Vaccine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.