ReviewGlobal health & medicine2026
Pneumococcal vaccination and aspiration pneumonia in super-aged societies: A scoping review of the evidence landscape.
Review in Global health & medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aspiration pneumonia is the leading cause of pneumonia-related death in Japan, where 29.3% of the population is aged ≥ 65 years, and it represents a growing challenge across rapidly aging Asian societies. Although pneumococcal vaccination is widely implemented for older adults, its effectiveness specifically against aspiration pneumonia remains unestablished. This scoping review systematically mapped the existing evidence on pneumococcal vaccination effectiveness for aspiration pneumonia prevention. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched, identifying five studies (three primary studies and two reviews). None directly evaluated vaccine effectiveness with aspiration pneumonia as a defined outcome. Indirect evidence from studies including aspiration pneumonia within composite pneumonia outcomes suggests potential benefits; however, vaccine-specific effects could not be isolated. This review identifies a structural misalignment between the predominant pneumonia phenotype in super-aged societies and existing vaccine evaluation frameworks, and demonstrates that aspiration pneumonia has been systematically overlooked as a prespecified outcome in vaccine effectiveness research. Notably, the absence of direct evidence reflects limitations in study design and outcome definition, rather than evidence of vaccine ineffectiveness. Dedicated clinical studies are warranted to inform evidence-based immunization policies.
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.