Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42403499›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada2026

Influenza vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Meisam Abdar Esfahani, Honghao Lai, Ramtin Hakim Javadi, Rimsha Haque, Yasmin Meghdadi, Rayan Farhvash, Rachel Couban, Sarah Cairns, Sameer Elsayed, Long Ge and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Influenza vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2026
    Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Meisam Abdar EsfahaniDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Honghao LaiEvidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Ramtin Hakim JavadiDepartment of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rimsha HaqueFaculty of Science and the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Yasmin MeghdadiTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rayan FarhvashDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Rachel CoubanMichael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah CairnsHealth Sciences Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sameer ElsayedDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Long GeEvidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Michael SilvermanDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0389-7656
MohammadReza Rahimi ShahmirzadiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2410-6788

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Annual influenza vaccination is recommended for solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, with various strategies explored to enhance efficacy. Given the ongoing uncertainty about the benefits and potential risks of different strategies in influenza vaccination in SOT recipients, comparing the indirect comparisons of the available evidence is necessary. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL from inception to March 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared different influenza vaccinations in SOT recipients. We conducted a network meta-analysis and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence, categorize interventions, and present the findings. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024537277). Results: A total of 13 articles met our eligibility criteria (with 2,298 participants) and assessed 10 vaccination strategies. The high-dose (60IMSD) influenza vaccine was superior to the standard influenza vaccination regarding the seroconversion rate for H1N1 (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.39; high certainty) and H3N2 (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.94; high certainty). All of the included vaccination strategies might have no difference in graft rejection and other adverse events compared with the standard vaccination. Conclusions: We found that the 60IMSD vaccine demonstrated better immunogenicity outcomes compared with all other influenza vaccines studied in SOT recipients. Additionally, we observed little or no difference among various influenza vaccination strategies in terms of graft rejection and other serious adverse events (SAEs) or non-serious adverse events (non-SAEs).

Indexed as

evidence-based medicinehumanimmunizationinfluenzatransplantvaccinationvaccine

Identifiers

PMID42403499
PMCPMC13331628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.