Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis

Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Écart entre enseignants

0,303 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail

Statut de validation

score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Résumé

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials and meta-analyses have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in adults. We sought to evaluate the vaccine's efficacy on clinical outcomes as well as the methodologic quality of the trials. METHODS: We searched several databases and all bibliographies of reviews and meta-analyses for clinical trials that compared pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine with a control. We examined rates of pneumonia and death, taking the methodologic quality of the trials into consideration. RESULTS: We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on all-cause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials. The relative risk (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.96) for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia and 0.73 (95% CI 0.56-0.94) for all-cause pneumonia. There was significant heterogeneity between the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia (I(2) = 74%, p < 0.001) and between those reporting on all-cause pneumonia (I(2) = 90%, p < 0.001). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09), with moderate heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 44%, p = 0.053). Trial quality, especially regarding double blinding, explained a substantial proportion of the heterogeneity in the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia and all-cause pneumonia. There was little evidence of vaccine protection in trials of higher methodologic quality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.75-1.92, for presumptive pneumonia; and 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.49, for all-cause pneumonia in double-blind trials; p for heterogeneity > 0.05). The results for all-cause mortality in double-blind trials were similar to those in all trials combined. There was little evidence of vaccine protection among elderly patients or adults with chronic illness in analyses of all trials (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.38, for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia; 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.14, for all-cause pneumonia; and 1.00, 95% CI 0.87-1.14, for all-cause mortality). INTERPRETATION: Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

La notice

Revue

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Thématique

Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections

Domaine

Medicine

Établissements canadiens

—

Organismes subventionnaires

World Health Organization

Mots-clés

MedicinePneumoniaBlindingClinical trialMeta-analysisInternal medicinePneumococcal pneumoniaRelative riskConfidence intervalPneumococcal vaccineVaccinationPneumococcal polysaccharide vaccineStreptococcus pneumoniaeImmunologyPneumococcal diseaseMicrobiologyAntibioticsBiology

Résumé présent dans OpenAlex

oui

API

/api/v1/works/W2110155476