SynthesisReviews in medical virology2025
Relative Efficacy, Effectiveness and Safety of Newer and/or Enhanced Seasonal Influenza Vaccines for the Prevention of Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza in Individuals Aged 18 years and Over: Update of a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Reviews in medical virology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of adjuvanted influenza vaccine in the older adult population in the Netherlands.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Review
- mRNA-based seasonal influenza vaccines: an overview of immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines and Duration of Protection Against Hospitalisation in England: 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 Seasons.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2025Article
- Review
- Opportunities for and Challenges of Conducting Indirect Treatment Comparisons and Meta-Analyses for Vaccines in Post-EU HTA Regulation Era.Journal of market access & health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We performed an update (last search: 24 July 2023) of a systematic review on relative efficacy/effectiveness (rVE) and safety of newer/enhanced seasonal influenza vaccines in comparison with standard influenza vaccine or in head-to-head comparison. Eligible studies investigated adults aged ≥ 18 years, analysed the MF59-adjuvanted or high-dose or cell-based or recombinant or mRNA-based influenza vaccine and reported rVE or safety in randomised controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Of 1561 new entries identified, 17 studies were included. Together with 42 studies identified in the previous primary review they added up to 59 studies, all comparing newer/enhanced with standard seasonal influenza vaccines. Relative VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza was -30% (95%CI: -146% to 31%) to 88% (51%-100%; 7 NRSI) for the MF59-adjuvanted vaccine (low certainty of evidence, CoE); 24.2% (9.7%-36.5%; 1 RCT) and -9% (-158% to 54%) to 19% (-27% to 48%; 1 NRSI) for the high-dose vaccine (moderate CoE); -5.8% (-36.1% to 17.7%) to 21.4% (-7.3% to 42.4%; 2 NRSI) for the cell-based vaccine (low CoE); 30% (10%-47%; 1 RCT) and 3% (-31% to 28%) to 19% (-27% to 48%; 1 NRSI) for the recombinant vaccine (moderate CoE), respectively. Relative VE against laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalisation was 59.2% (14.6%-80.5%; 1 NRSI) for the MF59-adjuvanted (moderate CoE); 27% (-1 to 48%; 1 NRSI) for the high-dose (low CoE); 8.5% (-75.9% to 52.3%; 1 NRSI) for the cell-based (low CoE); -7.3% (-52.1% to 24.4%) to 16.3% (-8.7% to 35.5%; 1 RCT) for the recombinant vaccine. No increased risk of serious adverse events was detected for any vaccine (12 RCT, 7 NRSI; low CoE). While all have a favourable safety profile, evidence on rVE of newer/enhanced vaccines is still limited, warranting further studies.
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.