ReviewVaccines2026
Efficacy and Response of R21/Matrix-M in Malaria Vaccine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundR21/Matrix-M is a pre-erythrocytic malaria vaccine supported by a growing body of field-efficacy, immunogenicity, safety, controlled-challenge, and implementation evidence. We synthesized the contemporary human evidence and quantified protection against naturally acquired clinical malaria.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted and reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for studies published from January 2021 to February 2026. The review was not prospectively registered, and no separate protocol was prepared. Eleven studies were retained for the systematic review. The primary quantitative synthesis pooled 12-month Cox proportional-hazards estimates for the first episode of clinical malaria from two independent randomized field trials using generic inverse variance methods. Robustness was examined using a fixed-effect model, a sensitivity analysis that disaggregated the phase III seasonal and standard/perennial transmission strata, and a phase III-only analysis. Booster follow-up and controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies were summarized descriptively to avoid double counting and mixing of incompatible endpoints.
resultsThe primary trial-level meta-analysis yielded a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.265 (95% CI 0.235-0.299), equivalent to vaccine efficacy (VE) of 73.5% (95% CI 70.1-76.5%), with no detected heterogeneity (I
conclusionsR21/Matrix-M provides substantial protection against naturally acquired clinical malaria, and the central efficacy estimate is robust to alternative analytic specifications. The quantitative evidence base remains small, however, and longer-term effectiveness, severe-malaria protection, booster timing, and post-deployment safety require continued evaluation.
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.