Intradermal versus Intramuscular Administration of Influenza Vaccination: Rapid Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Vaccinations are essential for prevention of influenza. We synthesized the published literature on the immunogenicity and safety of the influenza vaccine at reduced or full intradermal doses compared with full intramuscular doses. Methods A rapid review of the literature was completed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies published from 2010 until June 5 th , 2020. All studies comparing intradermal and intramuscular influenza vaccinations were included. Random-effects meta-analyses of immunogenicity and safety outcomes were conducted. Results A total of 30 relevant studies were included. Seroconversion rates were equivalent between the 3 mcg, 6 mcg, 7.5 mcg, and 9 mcg intradermal vaccine doses and the 15 mcg intramuscular vaccine dose for each of the H1N1, H3N2, and B strains, but significantly higher with the 15 mcg intradermal compared with the 15 mcg intramuscular dose, for the H1N1 (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.20) and B strains (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.13-1.73). Seroprotection rates for the 9 mcg and 15 mcg intradermal doses were equivalent with the 15 mcg intramuscular dose for all the three strains, except for the 15 mcg intradermal dose for the H1N1 strain which was significantly higher (RR 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09). Local adverse events were significantly higher with intradermal doses. Fever and chills were significantly higher with the 9 mcg intradermal dose, while all other systemic adverse events were equivalent for all doses. Conclusion Reduced dose intradermal influenza vaccination appears to be a reasonable alternative to standard dose intramuscular vaccination because of the similarity in immunogenicity.
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 | 0.021 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".