SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Efficacy and safety of maternal RSV vaccination against infant lower respiratory tract infections: 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of infant lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) and hospitalisation worldwide. Maternal RSV prefusion F (RSVpreF) vaccination protects infants through transplacental antibody transfer. We aimed to synthesise the efficacy, real-world effectiveness, and safety of maternal RSV vaccination for preventing infant LRTI, integrating randomised and observational evidence. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL (to June 2026) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of maternal RSV vaccination reporting infant LRTI, hospitalisation, or maternal-infant safety. A single reviewer, with large language model-assisted verification, screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (RoB 2; Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Randomised and observational evidence were pooled separately using random-effects models; overlapping populations were resolved based on study periods and named participating sites. Certainty was rated with GRADE (PROSPERO CRD420261400053). Results: Twenty-four studies (9 RCTs enrolling approximately 18,600 pregnant women, 15 observational) were included; all 15 observational studies evaluated the licensed Pfizer vaccine (Abrysvo). Pooled vaccine effectiveness against infant RSV-associated hospitalisation was 79.7% (95% CI 73.9-84.2) within 3 months and 68.1% (57.1-76.3) through 6 months. Randomised efficacy against severe RSV-LRTI was 70% for the licensed Pfizer vaccine, closely concordant with the real-world effectiveness; efficacy against medically attended RSV-LRTI was 51.5% (36.3-63.1). Preterm birth was modestly increased in the randomised trials (Mantel-Haenszel RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.32), but the signal was not robust: it became non-significant after excluding the GSK trial (GRACE; 1.10, 0.95-1.27), and for the licensed Pfizer vaccine, the increase was small and not robustly significant (pivotal MATISSE trial 1.20, 0.98-1.46; three-trial Pfizer pool 1.21, 1.00-1.46), while observational data showed a biologically implausible protective association (0.90, 0.82-0.99), consistent with healthy vaccinee confounding. No other maternal or neonatal safety signal was identified. Certainty of evidence was moderate for effectiveness and efficacy. Conclusion: Maternal RSVpreF vaccination confers substantial, generalisable protection against infant RSV disease, with randomised and real-world evidence in close agreement. For the licensed Pfizer vaccine administered within its approved 32-36-week window, no robustly significant increase in preterm birth is established, supporting its continued programmatic use alongside ongoing post-marketing surveillance. Systematic review registration: Unique Identifier: CRD420261400053 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261400053.
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.