A Meta‐analysis of intradermal versus intramuscular influenza vaccines: Immunogenicity and Adverse Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine immunogenicity and safety of intradermal (ID) influenza vaccines compared with intramuscular (IM) administration and effect of dose and age. DESIGN: Meta-anlysis. SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on influenza vaccines. SAMPLE: Randomized, controlled trials comparing ID seasonal split-virus influenza vaccines with 15 μg IM control in subjects 18 years of age or older and assessed antibody response at 21-28 days post-vaccination were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 13 trials were included. The pooled immunogenicity outcomes did not differ significantly between the IM and ID vaccine groups for the H1N1 (ratio of GMTR: 0·92, 95% confidence interval 0·77-1·09; seroconversion: 0·94, 0·86-1·02; seroprotection: 0·97, 0·94-1·00) and B strains (GMTR: 0·93, 0·80-1·08; seroconversion: 0·91, 0·80-1·04; seroprotection: 0·97, 0·91-1·03). For the H3N2 strain, there was no significant difference in GMTR (0·97, 0·80-1·18); however, there was a lower pooled seroconversion (0·89, 0·80-0·99) and seroprotection rate (0·98, 0·96-0·99) for ID recipients. There was a statistically significant association between increasing doses of the ID vaccination with increasing immunogenicity response (P = 0·01). There were no differences in adverse event rates within 3 days post-vaccination for ID versus IM. But for adverse events occurring 7 days post-vaccination, ID vaccination was associated with a greater incidence of local events but not systemic events. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in immunologic response when comparing ID with IM administration of the influenza vaccination in the overall population, but higher doses of ID vaccine in the older adult population produced a better response.
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 | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.059 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".