ArticleVaccines2025
A Comparison of Tests for Detecting Prior Exposure to
Article in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesQ-VAX vaccine, approved in Australia, prevents Q fever. However, individuals with prior
methodsImmune assays were compared in Australian populations with different incidences of prior
resultsAll tests performed better in detecting prior infection than in detecting prior vaccination. Only the IGRA identified all individuals with a known history of Q fever. Agreement between the skin test and IGRA was limited. Moderate agreement was observed between hypothetical vaccine eligibility determinations based on IGRA plus serology results and actual clinical decisions. IGRA-positive but serology- and skin test-negative individuals received Q-VAX without clinically significant side effects, suggesting that elevated IGRA responses alone are not predictive of susceptibility to vaccine reactogenicity.
conclusionsThe IGRA is not yet a suitable skin test replacement when assessing eligibility for Q fever vaccination, despite the significant limitations of the latter. We offer recommendations for designing future studies that might allow the development of appropriate guidelines for IGRA use in vaccine eligibility screening.
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.