Hepatitis B vaccination for patients with chronic renal failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic renal failure patients are at particular risk of hepatitis B virus infection. Early studies have demonstrated that renal failure patients benefit from vaccination; however, not all studies have consistently shown benefit. OBJECTIVES: To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of hepatitis B vaccine and of a reinforced vaccination series in chronic renal failure patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Renal Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2002),PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2003), EMBASE (1985 to November 2003), Current Clinical Practice Guidelines (Canadian Immunization Guide and Vaccine Preventable Diseases Surveillance Manual), and Science Citation Index as well as journals, published abstracts, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing plasma vaccine with placebo, recombinant vaccine with placebo, recombinant vaccine with plasma vaccine, and a reinforced vaccination series (ie, more than three inoculations) with three inoculations of vaccine in chronic renal failure patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome measures included incidence of patients developing hepatitis B virus antibodies and infections while secondary outcomes included adverse events, liver-related morbidity, and mortality. Random effects models were used and reported relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (RR and 95% CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven randomised clinical trials. None of them had high quality. Plasma vaccine was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving hepatitis B antibodies (RR 23.0, 95% CI 14.39 to 36.76, 3 trials). We found no statistically significant difference between plasma vaccine or placebo regarding hepatitis B virus infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.24). We found no statistically significant differences between recombinant vaccine and plasma vaccine in achieving hepatitis B antibodies (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.53, 2 trials). Heterogeneity was significant and appeared to be attributable to the dose of vaccine. Two trials examined a reinforced recombinant vaccine strategy, which was not statistically more effective than three inoculations of recombinant vaccine regarding development of hepatitis B antibodies (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.16). REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Plasma derived vaccines are more effective than placebo in achieving hepatitis B antibodies, while no statistically significant difference was found between recombinant and plasma vaccines. No statistically significant difference of effectiveness was observed between a reinforced vaccination series versus routine vaccinations of three inoculations of recombinant vaccine.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
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.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".