Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Vaccines in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs), 15- and 20-valent (PCV15 and PCV20), have been licensed for use among U.S. adults based on safety and immunogenicity data compared with the previously recommended 13-valent PCV (PCV13) and 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV23). We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PCV13 and PPSV23 efficacy (randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) or effectiveness (observational studies) against vaccine type (PCV13 type or PPSV23 type, respectively), invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD), and pneumococcal pneumonia (PP) in adults. We utilized the search strategy from a previous systematic review of the literature published during the period from January 2016 to April 2019, and updated the search through March 2022. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. When feasible, meta-analyses were conducted. Of the 5085 titles identified, 19 studies were included. One RCT reported PCV13 efficacy of 75% (PCV13-type IPD) and 45% (PCV13-type PP). Three studies each reported PCV13 effectiveness against PCV13-type IPD (range 47% to 68%) and against PCV13-type PP (range 38% to 68%). The pooled PPSV23 effectiveness was 45% (95% CI: 37%, 51%) against PPSV23-type IPD (nine studies) and 18% (95% CI: -4%, 35%) against PPSV23-type PP (five studies). Despite the heterogeneity across studies, our findings suggest that PCV13 and PPSV23 protect against VT-IPD and VT-PP in adults.
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 | 0.022 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".