Article

The efficacy of influenza vaccine for healthy children: a meta-analysis evaluating potential sources of variation in efficacy estimates including study quality.

Section of Epidemiology and Public Health, Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, University G. d'Annunzio, Chieti, Italy.
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal (Impact Factor: 3.14). 02/2007; 26(2):97-106. DOI: 10.1097/01.inf.0000253053.01151.bd
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Two systematic reviews evaluating influenza vaccine efficacy in healthy children have recently been published. Although quantitative summary estimates were similar, authors' conclusions were quite contrasting. We carried out another meta-analysis reevaluating study inclusion criteria and using metaregression techniques in addition to sensitivity and subgroups analyses to evaluate potential sources of heterogeneity of efficacy estimates, including methodologic quality of studies.
Only randomized clinical studies assessing the efficacy of influenza vaccine in healthy children/adolescents (age < or =18 years) for preventing naturally occurring influenza and/or acute otitis media cases were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random effects model. The methodologic quality of each study was assessed using 3 systems: Chalmers scale, Jadad scale and Schulz components (randomization, allocation concealment and double-blinding).
The overall vaccination efficacy was 36% (95% confidence interval: 31-40%) against clinically diagnosed illnesses (evaluated by 19 randomized clinical studies for a total of 247,517 children); 67% (51-78%) against laboratory-confirmed cases (18 trials, n = 8574); and 51% (21-70%) against acute otitis media (11 trials, n = 11,349). Significant sources of between-study heterogeneity were participants' age and study quality both directly correlated with the efficacy. When the analysis was performed excluding USSR studies, the overall efficacy of the vaccine in preventing clinical cases substantially increased (from 36% to 61%).
These findings may indicate that the vaccine efficacy might be greater than the overall estimates. Although no safety and cost considerations are addressed in this analysis, the present findings support vaccination as a possible option for the prevention of influenza in healthy children and adolescents.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
101 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Las enfermedades infecciosas prevenibles por vacunas han sido la inspiración del pensamiento científico desde tiempos inmemorables. Su creación ha inspirado la solución de problemas y ha marcado pauta en el pensamiento científico. Han trascendido más allá de la enfermedad en sí, permitiendo el desarrollo científico y la evolución de las civilizaciones. Clásicamente, ha sido muy bien implementada la inmunización en la edad pediátrica y en la actualidad se demuestra, con cada vez mayor énfasis, la necesidad de que el médico que atiende al adulto conozca e indique las diversas inmunizaciones requeridas, con el objetivo de prevenir enfermedades en el individuo y evitar la propagación de las mismas en su familia y comunidad. Ciertas poblaciones especiales con compromiso inmunológico ameritan las vacunaciones para mantener su estatus de salud. Es por ello que el objetivo de esta revisión es actualizar las pautas de las inmunizaciones en el adulto para una implementación adecuada. El costobeneficio de las inmunizaciones en estas poblaciones es una consideración fundamental, en la cual la balanza se inclina hacia la necesaria inversión económica en pro de ofrecer una mejor calidad de vida.
    Gaceta médica de Caracas 09/2008; 116(3):181-182.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is a complex invasive procedure and the experience of the operator and the team is a major determinant of procedural outcomes.
    Europace 06/2014; · 3.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ = 0.19), ranging from κ = -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ = 0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ = -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.
    PLoS ONE 05/2014; 9(5):e96920. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
4 Downloads
Available from