Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Canadian Medical Association Journal
- Topic
- Pneumonia and Respiratory Infections
- Field
- Medicine
- Canadian institutions
- —
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- Keywords
- MedicinePneumoniaBlindingClinical trialMeta-analysisInternal medicinePneumococcal pneumoniaRelative riskConfidence intervalPneumococcal vaccineVaccinationPneumococcal polysaccharide vaccineStreptococcus pneumoniaeImmunologyPneumococcal diseaseMicrobiologyAntibioticsBiology
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes