Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9336663›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology reviews1997

Prospects for the development of fungal vaccines.

G S Deepe

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology reviews, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Fungal cell wall vaccines: an update.Journal of medical microbiology · 2012
    Review
  5. Article
  6. [Therapeutic or prophylactic antifungal vaccination: problems and solutions].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2008
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Immunity to fungal infections.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2004
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

G S DeepeDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Ohio 45267-0560, USA. deepegs@ucunix.san.uc.edu
University of Cincinnati Medical Center · US

Funding

PROTECTIVE ANTIGENS FROM HISTOPLASMA CAPSULATUMR01AI034361 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI DEEPE, GEORGE S. · 1993 to 2007
$2.5M
NIAID NIH HHS AI34361
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an era that emphasizes the term "cost-effective," vaccines are the ideal solution to preventing disease at a relatively low cost to society. Much of the previous emphasis has been on childhood scourges such as measles, mumps, rubella, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b. The concept of vaccines for fungal diseases has had less impact because of the perceived limited problem. However, fungal diseases have become increasingly appreciated as serious medical problems that require recognition and aggressive management. The escalation in the incidence and prevalence of infection has prompted a renewed interest in vaccine development. Herein, I discuss the most recent developments in the search for vaccines to combat fungal infections. Investigators have discovered several inert substances from various fungi that can mediate protection in animal models. The next challenge will be to find the suitable mode of delivery for these immunogens.

Indexed as

Adjuvants, ImmunologicAntibody FormationBlastomycesCandidaCryptococcus neoformansFungal VaccinesHistoplasmaHumansImmunity, CellularImmunity, InnateImmunocompromised HostMycosesParacoccidioidesPneumocystisVaccinationAdjuvants, ImmunologicFungal Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID9336663
PMCPMC172935
OpenAlexW2156318926

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.