ReviewVaccines2025
Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of Pertussis Vaccine During Pregnancy: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Vaccines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunological insights into why pertussis continues to be endemic.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Vaccinations for Expecting Mothers to Improve Pregnancy Care in Middle Tennessee.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of a multicomponent intervention on maternal Tdap vaccination coverage during a major pertussis resurgence in the province of Quebec, Canada: A quasi-experimental study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Neonatal and infant mortality after maternal influenza and pertussis vaccination: Probabilistically linked cohort study.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA growing number of countries implement prenatal pertussis vaccination policies to safeguard unvaccinated infants. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of antenatal Tdap vaccination in pregnant individuals.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception to 16 February 2025, rigorously screening studies and including seven randomized controlled trials and 10 case-control studies published between 2014 and 2024. For the test-negative design meta-analysis, odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals served as effect estimates, and vaccine efficacy was calculated accordingly. Standardized mean differences were used to assess geometric mean concentrations, while relative risks evaluated safety.
resultsMaternal vaccination during pregnancy demonstrated 85% vaccine effectiveness (95% CI: 78-89%) in protecting infants under 3 months old. Pooled standardized mean differences for cord blood IgG antibodies against pertussis toxin, pertactin, and filamentous hemagglutinin were 1.57 (95% CI: 1.25-1.89), 2.15 (95% CI: 1.82-2.48), and 2.25 (95% CI: 1.81-2.68), respectively, indicating higher antibody levels in infants of vaccinated women before their first immunization. Safety analysis showed no significant association between Tdap vaccination during pregnancy and serious adverse events in infants (RR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.46-1.24) and pregnant women (RR = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.83-1.81).
conclusionOur findings support the implementation of pertussis vaccination during pregnancy.
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.