Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39367499›Full record

SynthesisJournal of translational medicine2024

Head-to-head comparison of influenza vaccines in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Réka Garai, Ágoston Jánosi, Péter Krivácsy, Vivien Herczeg, Tamás Kói, Rita Nagy, Marcell Imrei, Andrea Párniczky, Miklós Garami, Péter Hegyi and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Réka GaraiPediatric Center, MTA Center of Excellence, Semmelweis University, Bókay Unit, Bókay János Utca 53-54, 1083, Budapest, Hungary. garai.reka@semmelweis.hu.ORCID 0000-0001-6201-764X
Ágoston JánosiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter KrivácsyPediatric Center, MTA Center of Excellence, Semmelweis University, Bókay Unit, Bókay János Utca 53-54, 1083, Budapest, Hungary.
Vivien HerczegPediatric Center, MTA Center of Excellence, Semmelweis University, Bókay Unit, Bókay János Utca 53-54, 1083, Budapest, Hungary.
Tamás KóiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Rita NagyCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Marcell ImreiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Andrea PárniczkyCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Miklós GaramiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Péter HegyiCentre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
Attila József SzabóPediatric Center, MTA Center of Excellence, Semmelweis University, Bókay Unit, Bókay János Utca 53-54, 1083, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although vaccination is considered the most effective weapon against influenza, coverage rates, national vaccination policies, and funding vary largely around the globe. Despite their huge potential for achieving herd immunity, child-focused national vaccination strategies that favor pain-free nasal vaccines are uncommon. CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE were last searched on November 13, 2023. Active-controlled randomized controlled trials comparing the live-attenuated intranasal vaccine with the inactivated intramuscular influenza vaccine in children were included. Event rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, serious adverse events, adverse events, and financial outcomes were extracted based on the PRISMA 2020 Guideline. PROSPERO: CRD42021285412. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model when at least three comparable outcomes were available. We found no significant difference between quadrivalent live-attenuated intranasal and trivalent inactivated intramuscular (OR = 1.48; 95% CI 0.49-4.45) or between trivalent live-attenuated intranasal and inactivated intramuscular vaccines (OR = 0.77, CI = 0.44-1.34) regarding their efficacy. However, the subgroup analysis of large, multi-center trials indicated that the trivalent live attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine was superior to the trivalent inactivated intramuscular influenza vaccine (12,154 people, OR = 0.50, CI = 0.28-0.88). Only 23 "vaccine-related serious adverse events" were recorded among 17 833 individuals, with no significant difference between methods. The widespread initiation of pediatric national flu vaccination programs prioritizing the live-attenuated intranasal influenza vaccine would be beneficial. Multi-continent, high-quality studies that include children younger than two years old and those living in subtropical and tropical regions are needed to further enhance our understanding.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesAdministration, IntranasalChildHumansPublication BiasVaccinationVaccines, InactivatedInfluenza VaccinesVaccines, InactivatedCost-effectivenessFluHealth policyPain-free vaccinesVaccine efficacyVaccine safety

Identifiers

PMID39367499
PMCPMC11453075

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.