SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Safety of Sabin-derived inactivated poliovirus vaccine in adult booster recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
Background: Poliomyelitis remains a public health concern in select regions. Sabin strain-derived inactivated poliovirus vaccine (sIPV) offers a potentially safer and cost-effective alternative to conventional IPV (cIPV) for adult booster immunization. Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyze evidence on the safety of sIPV in adults. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus through January 2026 for randomized controlled trials comparing sIPV with cIPV/w-IPV or placebo in adults. Safety outcomes included local and systemic adverse events: pain, erythema, induration, fever, headache, malaise, and allergic reactions. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently performed. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models in RevMan 5.4, reporting risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. Results: Four trials encompassing 70-340 adults were included. Pooled analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in any adverse events between sIPV and cIPV: pain (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.98-2.50), erythema (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.64-3.69), induration (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-3.06), fever (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.39-2.33), headache (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.21-2.37), and malaise (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.17-3.27). Heterogeneity was negligible ( Conclusion: sIPV demonstrates a safety profile comparable to conventional IPV in adult booster recipients, supporting its use as a viable alternative in polio eradication strategies. Further large-scale and long-term studies are warranted to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration: identifier: CRD420261329648.
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.