SynthesisMedicine2025
The protective efficacy of inactivated vaccine against hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hantavirus preparedness at human-rodent interfaces: lessons from China's HFRS control and Andes virus transmission in mobile populations.Emerging microbes & infections · 2026Review
- Drivers of Viral Spillover: An Examination of How Pathogens Spread.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The protective efficacy of inactivated vaccine against hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome: A meta-analysis: Erratum.Medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) is a kind of natural epidemic diseases with rodents as the main source of infection. The main clinical manifestations of HFRS are fever, hemorrhage, congestion, hypotensive shock and kidney damage. Some studies showed that vaccination populations in infected areas with inactivated vaccines can reduce the incidence of the disease, but there are variations in protection rates among these studies. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the protective effect of inactivated vaccines against HFRS.
methodsWeb of Science, PubMed, SinoMed, Proquest, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Database, VIP Database were searched from their inception to December 2024. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of evidence, and a random-effects meta-analysis was done to calculate pooled risk ratios for vaccination uptake. All the relevant data were analyzed by using STATA 15.0.
resultsA total of 15 articles were included, all of which explicitly reported the total number of vaccinated and unvaccinated people in the vaccination group, and the number of cases that developed during the observation period. Six of these articles reported positive antibody transfer rates. The protection rate of the inactivated HFRS vaccine reached 86%, and a subgroup analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the protection rate of the inactivated vaccine between Korea and China. The positive IgG antibody transfer rate was 97%, and neutralizing antibody transfer rate was 37%.
conclusionThe results indicated that inactivated vaccine has a good protective effect against HFRS and should be universally administered to populations in high prevalence areas to control the harm caused by HFRS epidemics.
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.