ReviewVaccines2026
Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness in Korea: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World Evidence from the Past Decade.
Review in Vaccines, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfluenza remains a significant public health burden. Although vaccination is the most effective preventive strategy, evidence on influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) in Korea remains fragmented.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on real-world Korean influenza VE studies published from January 2016 to October 2025. Literature research was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies evaluated influenza VE using real-world data sources. Pooled VE estimates were calculated using a random-effects model and stratified by age group and virus type.
resultsA total of 2922 records were identified, of which nine studies met the inclusion criteria and eight were included in the meta-analysis. Eight of nine studies were conducted in hospital settings. Five studies targeted adults (including two focusing on those aged ≥ 65 years), and four targeted children. Six of the nine studies evaluated single influenza seasons, while the remaining three covered multiple seasons. Statistically significant VE was observed among adults (23.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.8 to 32.2), children (25.2%, 95% CI: 8.2 to 39.0) and against influenza A in children (32.4%, 95% CI: 17.7 to 44.4).
conclusionsThis study synthesized a decade of fragmented VE evidence in Korea. Findings suggest suboptimal effectiveness compared to global estimates, highlighting the need for further evaluation of alternative vaccine platforms, including cell-based vaccines, within Korea's national immunization strategy.
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.