ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Rubella seroprevalence among women of childbearing age in Tunis, Tunisia.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Congenital Rubella Syndrome in the Post-Elimination Era: Why Vigilance Remains Essential.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRubella is considered as a benign childhood infection. Congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) can result from the virus's teratogenic potential, making the infection dangerous for pregnant women, particularly in the first trimester. Immunization is the only effective prevention against rubella and CRS in the absence of specific treatment. Since 2005, the rubella vaccine has been available in Tunisia. This study aimed to assess, eighteen years after the implementation of the program's vaccination in the country, its effect on rubella seroprevalence in women of reproductive age.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study was performed from January 2021 to December 2023 at Aziza Othmana Hospital (Tunis), which has one of the biggest obstetrical and assisted medical procreation units in Tunisia. Each woman consulting in one of these two units was screened for rubella-IgG antibodies by electrochemiluminescence assay using the Elecsys Rubella IgG Kit and the Cobas e411 analyzer (Roche Diagnostics
resultsDuring the study period, 1652 women were enrolled; their age ranged from 18 to 46 years old (33.4 ± 5.3 years). Overall, the proportion of women who were protected against rubella was 93.9%; it was significantly higher among those who were part of the immunization programs (96.6% vs. 93.2%; p = 0.01). The median level of Rubella IgG in this first group was 175 ± 159 IU/mL. Women, who were not caught up by the strategy of vaccination, were seronegative in 6.8% of cases. Rubella IgM antibodies were negative in all the 143 cases tested excluding recent infection.
conclusionThese findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the rubella vaccine, which is administered systematically as part of the national immunization schedule in all one-year-old infants. Nonetheless, the persistent vulnerability for rubellain susceptible women in their reproductive years highlights the importance of their vaccination during the pre-conception or in early postpartum phases. CLINICAL TRIAL: Not applicable, as this study is not a clinical trial.
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.