Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

Smith, Stephanie; Demicheli, Vittorio; Pietrantonj, Carlo Di; Harnden, Anthony; Jefferson, Tom; Matheson, NJ; Rivetti, Alessandro

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004879.pub2

Cited by 41 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 108 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accounting for the latter point (e.g., serologic diagnosis to capture symptomatic and asymptomatic cases) could yield slightly higher estimates than ours, provided that vaccination reduces the probability of clinical illness if infection occurs. Thus, despite these limitations and a critical need for further studies that include estimations of effectiveness ( 10 ), our results provide insight into the effects of vaccination in reducing risks for infection and clinical attack among children exposed to pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus in their households.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Vaccination against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 among Japanese Children

Nishiura¹,

Oshitani²

2011

Emerg. Infect. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Vaccination against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 among Japanese Children

Nishiura¹,

Oshitani²

2011

Emerg. Infect. Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In contrast, the mortality from influenza is many times higher in the elderly than in children (Bhat et al, 2003; Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Smith et al, 2006). Although children do occasionally die from influenza, the rate in non-pandemic years in the USA is lower in children than at any other age (see Table 2).…”

Section: Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although children do occasionally die from influenza, the rate in non-pandemic years in the USA is lower in children than at any other age (see Table 2). It is estimated that an average of 92 children <5 years died annually from influenza in the 1990s in the USA compared with an average of 32,651 deaths a year in adults >65 years (Bhat et al, 2003; Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices; Smith et al, 2006).…”

Section: Transmissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hot Topics in Infection and Immunity in Children V

2009

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the review of Smith et al (6) considerable heterogeneity is detected for different comparisons (i.e. I 2 > 50%).…”

Section: Heterogeneitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results — no. 3: meta‐analysis and heterogeneity

Kremer¹,

Dalen²,

Vandermeer³

2006

Evid.‐Based Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This third article for 'Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results' in Evidence-Based Child Health is, like the previous articles, aimed at helping to understand the results of systematic reviews and to use the results in clinical practice. This time, we focus on the concepts of meta-analysis and heterogeneity. The information in this article is based on earlier papers, the Cochrane Handbook, and the collective experience of the authors in teaching evidence-based medicine (1-5). Understanding SR results Meta-analysisA meta-analysis can be one of the components of a systematic review. In a meta-analysis the results of several individual studies are combined. A metaanalysis can only be performed if the study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes in the individual studies are similar. The overall effect estimate will be calculated as a weighted average of the treatment effects estimated in the individual studies. The weighted average is based on the treatment effect and the standard error of the results; larger and/or more precise studies have more influence than the smaller ones. By combining the results of several individual studies in a meta-analysis the presence of relatively small effects can be more easily detected.In general there are two statistical models to perform a meta-analysis: the fixed effects model and the random effects model (3). They differ in the way the variability of the results between the individual studies is treated. The fixed effects model assumes that the true effect of treatment (in both magnitude and direction) is the same value in every study (i.e. fixed across studies) and that the observed variability in the metaanalysis is exclusively due to random variation. The random effects model assumes a different underlying effect for each study and takes this into consideration as an additional source of variation, which leads to somewhat wider confidence intervals, a more even distribution of study weights, and a slightly different interpretation in the combined estimate compared to the fixed effects model. A substantial difference in the *Correspondence to: Leontien C. M. Kremer, Department of Paediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: l.c.kremer@amc.uva.nl overall effect estimate (and corresponding confidence interval) calculated by the fixed and random effects models will be seen only if studies are markedly heterogeneous. What is heterogeneity?Inevitably, studies brought together in systematic reviews will differ. Variability among the individual studies is called heterogeneity. There are different types of heterogeneity (1): clinical heterogeneity may be caused by variability in the participants, interventions and outcomes studied, and methodological heterogeneity may be caused by variability in study design and quality.A consequence of clinical and/or methodological heterogeneity, sometimes referred to as diversity, is the occurrence of statistical heterogeneity, which is variabil...

show abstract

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children

Cited by 41 publications

References 108 publications

Effects of Vaccination against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 among Japanese Children

Effects of Vaccination against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 among Japanese Children

Hot Topics in Infection and Immunity in Children V

Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results — no. 3: meta‐analysis and heterogeneity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About