ReviewLe infezioni in medicina2026
Update on efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of Dengue vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Le infezioni in medicina, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Dengue Fever (DF), caused by the Dengue virus (DENV), represents a major and expanding global public health challenge. Vaccination is an important public health tool that could prevent Dengue infection and reduce symptoms, including severe Dengue. Several dengue vaccines have been studied and implemented in selected countries; however, evidence on their efficacy/effectiveness, safety, and optimal use varies across populations and settings, highlighting the need for a comprehensive evaluation. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analyses followed PRISMA guidelines. Literature from 2010 was searched across three databases. Independent reviewers screened and extracted data, resolving conflicts with expert input. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB2 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted, reporting pooled Relative Risk and vaccine efficacy, and Geometric Mean Ratios, when feasible. Results: Seventy-nine studies were included, evaluating Dengue vaccines in adults (46.8%), children/adolescents (31.6%), and mixed-age populations (20.3%). Chimeric Yellow Fever-Dengue Tetravalent Vaccine (CYD-TDV/Dengvaxia Discussion: This review demonstrates substantial progress in Dengue vaccine development. Importantly, CYD-TDV favorable balance is limited to individuals with prior dengue exposure, whereas vaccination of seronegative individuals has been associated with an increased risk of severe dengue. Both CYD-TDV and TAK-003 showed robust immunogenicity and acceptable safety profiles. Emerging vaccine candidates, including TV003/TV005, Butantan-DV, TDEN, inactivated, subunit, and DNA-based platforms, have also shown promising safety and immunogenicity results in early-phase trials. Future attempts should focus on developing Dengue vaccines that provide safe, balanced, and durable protection against all four Dengue virus serotypes while minimizing the risk of antibody-dependent enhancement, focusing also on special populations.
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.