Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,918

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of BCG Vaccine in the Prevention of Tuberculosis: Meta-analysis of the Published Literature

Colditz, Graham A.·1994·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.1994.03510330076038
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the efficacy of BCG vaccine against tuberculosis (TB). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE with index terms BCG vaccine, tuberculosis, and human. Experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, among others, provided lists of all known studies. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 1264 articles or abstracts were reviewed for details on BCG vaccination, concurrent vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and TB outcome; 70 articles were reviewed in depth for method of vaccine allocation used to create comparable groups, equal surveillance and follow-up for recipient and concurrent control groups, and outcome measures of TB cases and/or deaths. Fourteen prospective trials and 12 case-control studies were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: We recorded study design, age range of study population, number of patients enrolled, efficacy of vaccine, and items to assess the potential for bias in study design and diagnosis. At least two readers independently extracted data and evaluated validity. DATA SYNTHESIS: The relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) of TB provided the measure of vaccine efficacy that we analyzed. The protective effect was then computed by 1-RR or 1-OR. A random-effects model estimated a weighted average RR or OR from those provided by the trials or case-control studies. In the trials, the RR of TB was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.70) for vaccine recipients compared with nonrecipients (protective effect of 51%). In the case-control studies, the OR for TB was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.64), or a 50% protective effect. Seven trials reporting tuberculous deaths showed a protective effect from BCG vaccine of 71% (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.53), and five studies reporting on meningitis showed a protective effect from BCG vaccine of 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.70). Geographic latitude of the study site and study validity score explained 66% of the heterogeneity among trials in a random-effects regression model. CONCLUSION: On average, BCG vaccine significantly reduces the risk of TB by 50%. Protection is observed across many populations, study designs, and forms of TB. Age at vaccination did not enhance predictiveness of BCG efficacy. Protection against tuberculous death, meningitis, and disseminated disease is higher than for total TB cases, although this result may reflect reduced error in disease classification rather than greater BCG efficacy.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1994.03510330076038

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Colditz, G. A.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1994-03-02
Volume
271
Issue
9
Pages
698
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1994.03510330076038
OpenAlex
W2075477269
Cited by
1,918
References
3
FWCI
35.94
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

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.