MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156941278 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-65

Influenza vaccines licensed in the United States in healthy children: a systematic review and network meta-analysis (Protocol)

2012· review· en· W2156941278 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriela Prutsky, Juan Pablo Domecq, Tarig Elraiyah, Zhen Wang, Lisa A. Grohskopf, Larry J. Prokop, Víctor M. Montori, M. Hassan Murad

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsMedicineObservational studySystematic reviewProtocol (science)Family medicineVaccinationRandomized controlled trialMEDLINEMeta-analysisAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses, which occurs in epidemics worldwide every year. Children are an important target for prevention methods, including vaccination. While evidence about the decision on whether to vaccinate healthy children is robust, evidence supporting the decision of which of available vaccines to use remains unclear.This review will summarize the evidence about the efficacy and safety of the available vaccines for seasonal influenza licensed in the United States for use in healthy children. METHODS/DESIGN: An umbrella systematic review (SR) and network meta-analysis will be conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We will search for SRs to identify parallel RCTs evaluating inactive and/or live attenuated influenza vaccines licensed in the United States for use in healthy children to prevent influenza. Subsequently, we will update the literature search of the selected SRs to the present time to capture recent controlled studies. To complement the work focused on harms, we will also select observational studies focusing on post marketing retrospective studies. Inclusion will not be limited by language, publication date or publication status. To identify additional candidate studies, we will review the reference lists of the eligible primary studies and narrative reviews; we will query the expert members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and review references from their previous statement. Additionally, we will review the reports from the Institute of Medicine on the adverse effects of vaccines. Two reviewers will independently determine study eligibility and will extract descriptive, methodological (using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies) and efficacy data. When possible, we will conduct meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by combining indirect and direct comparisons.We will evaluate heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and the agreement of indirect comparisons and direct evidence. We will report the Cochrane Q test to determine the statistical significance of heterogeneity.The overall quality of evidence will be assessed following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DISCUSSION: Our systematic review will allow patients, clinicians, guideline developers and policy makers to make evidence-based choices between the two available vaccine options, by providing information regarding benefits and harms of these types of vaccines.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0520.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.363
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207