The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of Pneumococcal Vaccination in Adults: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because of the prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia, the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with many pneumococcal infections, and an increase in the incidence of antibiotic resistance among pneumococcal isolates, considerable efforts for disease prevention have been made using a polyvalent polysaccharide pneumococcal vaccine. Despite numerous clinical trials of the vaccine, its efficacy in the prevention of pneumococcal infections and other clinically relevant medical outcomes in adults remains uncertain. METHODS: To assess quantitatively the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination, a MEDLINE literature search, manual reviews of article bibliographies, and communications with pneumococcal vaccine investigators were used to identify randomized controlled trials of the pneumococcal vaccine. Independent review of 594 articles revealed nine randomized trials with 12 vaccine and control study groups that evaluated clinically relevant outcomes in adults. To estimate a summary effect size for all outcomes, Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) and Dersimonian and Laird rate differences (RDs) and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. RESULTS: Summary ORs demonstrated a statistically significant protective effect of the vaccine for four pneumococcal infection-related outcomes: definitive pneumococcal pneumonia (OR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.48), definitive pneumococcal pneumonia for vaccine-containing pneumococcal antigen types only (vaccine types only) (OR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.33), presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.63), and presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia (vaccine types only) (OR = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.59). The summary RDs, which account for heterogeneity among studies, confirmed a statistically significant protective effect for two of these same outcomes: definitive pneumococcal pneumonia (RD = 4/1000; 95% CI = 0/1000 to 7/1000) and definitive pneumococcal pneumonia (vaccine types only) (RD = 8/1000; 95% CI = 1/1000 to 16/1000). Summary ORs and RDs failed to demonstrate a protective effect for pneumonia (all causes), bronchitis, and mortality (all causes) or mortality due to pneumonia or pneumococcal infection. Subgroup analyses showed that for all four pneumococcal infection-related outcomes, vaccine efficacy differed for high- and low-risk subjects, demonstrating efficacy for low-risk subjects and lack of efficacy for high-risk subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Pneumococcal vaccination appears efficacious in reducing bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia in low-risk adults. However, evidence from randomized controlled trials fails to demonstrate vaccine efficacy for pneumococcal infection-related or other medical outcomes in the heterogeneous group of subjects currently labeled as high risk.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., Blackburn, B., Silverman, B., Schroeder, B., Reitman, D., & Ambroz, A. (1981) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(81)90056-8 · Cited by 1,349
Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
Cited by
Hao (2015) · doi:10.1002/14651858 · Cited by 11,321
Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic Review
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 · Cited by 7,272
“The effect sizes were estimated from meta analyses: ; A = Shavelle, Paculdo, Strauss, and Kush, 2008 [205]; B = Critchley and Capewell, 2003 [206]; C = Holman, English, Milne, and Winter, 1996 [207]; D = Fine, Smith, Carson, Meffe, Sankey, Weissfeld, Detsky, and Kapoor, 1994 [208]; E = Taylor, Brown, Ebrahim, Jollife,…”
Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F., & Sbarra, D. A. (2017) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000103 · Cited by 978
Effectiveness of Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine in Older Adults
Jackson, L. A., Neuzil, K. M., Yu, O., Benson, P., Barlow, W. E., Adams, A. L., Hanson, C. A., Mahoney, L. D., Shay, D. K., & Thompson, W. W. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022678 · Cited by 608
Moher, D., Pham, B., Lawson, M., & Klassen, T. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7410 · Cited by 500
Metadata
- Authors
- Fine, M. J.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1994-12-12
- Volume
- 154
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 2666
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2008004063
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 5.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Efficacy of Pneumococcal Vaccination in Adults: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.1994.00420230051007
- The paper
- Fine, M. J. (1994). Efficacy of Pneumococcal Vaccination in Adults: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1994.00420230051007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.