MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4210978978 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001269.pub6

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults

2018· review· en· W4210978978 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Vittorio Demicheli, Tom Jefferson, Eliana Ferroni, Alessandro Rivetti, Carlo Di Pietrantonj

Notice bibliographique

RevueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMedical Research CouncilIWK Health CentreU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesSvenska LäkaresällskapetAssociazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul CancroBiomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityGlaxoSmithKlineNational Health and Medical Research CouncilDalhousie UniversityCompagnia di San PaoloForskningsrådet för Arbetsliv och SocialvetenskapVetenskapsrådet
Mots-clésObservational studyMedicineRandomized controlled trialVaccinationMEDLINEClinical trialInfluenza vaccineFamily medicineInternal medicineImmunology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The consequences of influenza in adults are mainly time off work. Vaccination of pregnant women is recommended internationally. This is an update of a review published in 2014. Future updates of this review will be made only when new trials or vaccines become available. Observational data included in previous versions of the review have been retained for historical reasons but have not been updated due to their lack of influence on the review conclusions. Objectives To assess the effects (efficacy, effectiveness, and harm) of vaccines against influenza in healthy adults, including pregnant women. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 31 December 2016), Embase (1990 to 31 December 2016), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; 1 July 2017), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1 July 2017), as well as checking the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi‐RCTs comparing influenza vaccines with placebo or no intervention in naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 16 to 65 years. Previous versions of this review included observational comparative studies assessing serious and rare harms cohort and case‐control studies. Due to the uncertain quality of observational (i.e. non‐randomised) studies and their lack of influence on the review conclusions, we decided to update only randomised evidence. The searches for observational comparative studies are no longer updated. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We rated certainty of evidence for key outcomes (influenza, influenza‐like illness (ILI), hospitalisation, and adverse effects) using GRADE. Main results We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines. We have presented findings from 25 studies comparing inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine against placebo or do‐nothing control groups as the most relevant to decision‐making. The studies were conducted over single influenza seasons in North America, South America, and Europe between 1969 and 2009. We did not consider studies at high risk of bias to influence the results of our outcomes except for hospitalisation. Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vaccination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.47; 71,221 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), and they probably reduce ILI from 21.5% to 18.1% (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 25,795 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence; 71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza, and 29 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing an ILI). The difference between the two number needed to vaccinate (NNV) values depends on the different incidence of ILI and confirmed influenza among the study populations. Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalisation in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%, but the CI is wide and does not rule out a large benefit (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.08; 11,924 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Vaccines may lead to little or no small reduction in days off work (‐0.04 days, 95% CI ‐0.14 days to 0.06; low‐certainty evidence). Inactivated vaccines cause an increase in fever from 1.5% to 2.3%. We identified one RCT and one controlled clinical trial assessing the effects of vaccination in pregnant women. The efficacy of inactivated vaccine containing pH1N1 against influenza was 50% (95% CI 14% to 71%) in mothers (NNV 55), and 49% (95% CI 12% to 70%) in infants up to 24 weeks (NNV 56). No data were available on efficacy against seasonal influenza during pregnancy. Evidence from observational studies showed effectiveness of influenza vaccines against ILI in pregnant women to be 24% (95% CI 11% to 36%, NNV 94), and against influenza in newborns from vaccinated women to be 41% (95% CI 6% to 63%, NNV 27). Live aerosol vaccines have an overall effectiveness corresponding to an NNV of 46. The performance of one‐ or two‐dose whole‐virion 1968 to 1969 pandemic vaccines was higher (NNV 16) against ILI and (NNV 35) against influenza. There was limited impact on hospitalisations in the 1968 to 1969 pandemic (NNV 94). The administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy had no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death, but this was based on observational data sets. Authors' conclusions Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate‐certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalisations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review. Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. Fifteen included RCTs were industry funded (29%).

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Étiquettes directes de modèles (non validées)

Étiquettes de catégorie et de devis d'étude par modèle, issues des rondes d'étiquetage. C'est une sortie machine, non validée, et le désaccord entre modèles est livré comme donnée. Aucun devis ici n'est encore validé contre MEDLINE.

BrasCatégoriesDevis d'étudeConfiance
gemmaaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Synthèse
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Revue systématiquelow
gptaucune catégorie
Domaine: non disponible · Genre: Synthèse
Porte sur le système de recherche canadien: non · Porte sur un sujet canadien: non
Revue systématiquehigh
modèles en accordL'accord compare des ensembles de catégories et des devis identiques entre les bras.

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,053

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,033
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0060,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,301
Tête enseignante GPT0,508
Écart entre enseignants0,207 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Étiqueté directement par 2 modèles lisant le dossier complet.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations232
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews→Même sujetInfluenza Virus Research Studies→Travaux en français237 207→