MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influenza vaccination for healthcare workers who care for people aged 60 or older living in long-term care institutions

2013· review· en· W4245597525 on OpenAlexaff
Roger E. Thomas, Tom Jefferson, Toby J Lasserson

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCochraneUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVaccinationHealth careBlindingRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)PneumoniaMEDLINEInfluenza vaccineRespiratory tract infectionsAdverse effectEmergency medicineInternal medicineImmunologyRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers' influenza rates are unknown but may be similar to those of the general public. Healthcare workers may transmit influenza to patients. OBJECTIVES: To identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs assessing the effects of vaccinating healthcare workers on the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza, pneumonia, death from pneumonia and admission to hospital for respiratory illness in those aged 60 years or older resident in long-term care institutions (LTCIs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 2, MEDLINE (1966 to March week 3, 2013), EMBASE (1974 to March 2013), Biological Abstracts (1969 to March 2013), Science Citation Index-Expanded (1974 to March 2013) and Web of Science (2006 to March 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs of influenza vaccination of healthcare workers caring for individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs and the incidence of laboratory-proven influenza and its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract infection) in individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four cluster-RCTs (C-RCTs) (n = 7558) and one cohort study (n = 12,742) of influenza vaccination for HCWs caring for individuals ≥ 60 years in LTCFs. Three RCTs (5896 participants) provided outcome data that met our criteria. These three studies were comparable in study populations, intervention and outcome measures. The studies did not report adverse events. The principal sources of bias in the studies related to attrition and blinding. The pooled risk difference (RD) from the three cluster-RCTs for laboratory-proven influenza was 0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.03) and for hospitalisation was RD 0 (95% CI -0.02 to 0.02). The estimated risk of death due to lower respiratory tract infection was also imprecise (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02) in individuals aged 60 years or older in LTCIs. Adjusted analyses which took into account the cluster design did not differ substantively from the pooled analysis with unadjusted data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results for specific outcomes: laboratory-proven influenza or its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalisation or death due to lower respiratory tract illness) did not identify a benefit of healthcare worker vaccination on these key outcomes. This review did not find information on co-interventions with healthcare worker vaccination: hand-washing, face masks, early detection of laboratory-proven influenza, quarantine, avoiding admissions, antivirals and asking healthcare workers with influenza or influenza-like-illness (ILI) not to work. This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of healthcare workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in LTCIs. High-quality RCTs are required to avoid the risks of bias in methodology and conduct identified by this review and to test further these interventions in combination.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations62
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207