Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39556294›Full record

ReviewAdvances in therapy2025

Understanding Influenza Vaccine Clinical Performance: A Podcast.

Nihar R Desai, Pier L Lopalco

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Nihar R DesaiSection of Cardiovascular Medicine Center for Outcomes Research Evaluation (CORE), Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Pier L LopalcoDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Salento, Lecce, Italy. pierluigi.lopalco@unisalento.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite well-established vaccination programs, seasonal influenza is still causing substantial clinical, economic and societal burdens. As part of strategies to continually improve influenza vaccine clinical performance, several new approaches are being examined, including high-dose vaccines, adjuvanted vaccines, egg-free vaccines, nasal spray vaccines and mRNA vaccines. Given this range of influenza vaccines, coupled with various vaccine hesitancy concerns, healthcare professionals' understanding and confidence in the clinical performance of influenza vaccines remain key. In this podcast, we discuss the challenges for healthcare professionals in understanding the clinical performance of influenza vaccines and the importance of education in this area, particularly to address perceptions of influenza vaccine failure. We also explore several elements that should be considered in the assessment of influenza vaccine clinical performance: (1) assessing relevant clinical outcomes, such as hospitalization data, (2) utilizing robust methodology in influenza vaccine trials to ensure high quality evidence and (3) approaches used when considering the full body of evidence.

Indexed as

Influenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesVaccine EfficacyHumansVaccination HesitancyInfluenza VaccinesGRADEHealthcare professionalsHospitalizationInfluenzaInfluenza burdenInfluenza vaccinationMethodologyRCTsReal-world evidenceVaccines

Identifiers

PMID39556294
PMCPMC11782400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.