MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real-world effectiveness of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIV) and inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV) in children from 2003 to 2023: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W6902305446 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOPAL (Open@LaTrobe) (La Trobe University) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLive attenuated influenza vaccineInfluenza vaccineSystematic reviewVaccinationInfluenza-like illness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Circulating influenza strains, vaccine effectiveness (VE), and vaccine recommendations vary over time. A systematic literature review (SLR), random effects meta-analysis (REMA), and network meta-analysis (NMA) estimated absolute VE (aVE) and relative VE (rVE) of LAIV and IIV in children/adolescents from initial LAIV approval in 2003. Northern Hemisphere studies (2003–2023) with children ≤19 yrs were included. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed risk-of-bias. REMA estimated aVE and three-node NMA (LAIV-IIV-unvaccinated) estimated rVE over three periods: 2003–04 to 2008–09 (pre-2009 A(H1N1) pandemic); 2010–11 to 2016–17 (post-2009 pandemic); 2017–18 to 2022–23 (post-LAIV strain-selection optimization). 109 studies included. aVE of LAIV and IIV against any influenza was similar (~50%) in each period. Effectiveness of LAIV vs. IIV against influenza types/subtypes was comparable except: (1) greater effectiveness with IIV for A(H1N1) in 2010–11 to 2016–17 (rVE –46% [95% CI: –57, –33]); (2) greater effectiveness with LAIV for influenza B in 2017–18 to 2022–23 (rVE 196% [95% CI: 73, 406]). In 2017–18 to 2022–23, effectiveness of LAIV and IIV against A(H1N1) was similar (rVE 10% [95% CI: −35, 87]). LAIV and IIV have demonstrated comparable effectiveness against any influenza in children.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.013
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOPAL (Open@LaTrobe) (La Trobe University)Same topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207