Vaccine effectiveness and impact of meningococcal vaccines against gonococcal infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and synthesis the evidence of vaccine effectiveness (VE) and impact (VI) of meningococcal vaccines in preventing gonorrhoea. METHODS: We systematically evaluated studies. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, clinical trial registries, and major health and immunisation conferences. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to estimate the pooled VE. RESULTS: Twelve studies met the criteria for inclusion. VE of meningococcal B (MenB) outer membrane vesicle (OMV) vaccines was evaluated in nine studies, with one study evaluating a non-OMV vaccine, MenB-FHbp. The majority of studies targeted individuals aged 15-30 years. Adjusted VE for OMV vaccines against gonorrhoea ranged from 22% to 46%. MenB-FHbp did not show protection against gonorrhoea. The pooled VE estimates of OMV vaccines against any gonorrhoea infection following the full vaccine series were 33-34%. VI was assessed for 4CMenB in Canada and Australia, for VA-MENGOC-BC in Cuba; and for MenBvac in Norway. VI ranged from a 30% to 59% reduction in gonorrhoea incidence. CONCLUSIONS: 4CMenB and other MenB-OMV vaccines show moderate effectiveness against gonorrhoea. Further research is required to explore the factors associated with vaccine protection, informing more effective vaccination strategies for the management of gonococcal infections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".