The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine efficacy. An evaluation of current recommendations
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine efficacy in selected populations at risk for serious pneumococcal infection for whom vaccination is currently recommended and to assess duration of protection after vaccination. DESIGN: Vaccine efficacy was estimated using indirect cohort analysis to compare the proportion of pneumococcal infections caused by serotypes included in the vaccines of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons who were identified during 14 years of national surveillance. SETTING: Hospital laboratories in the United States that submitted pneumococcal isolates to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention between May 1978 and April 1992. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2837 persons older than 5 years who had pneumococcus isolated from blood or cerebrospinal fluid. RESULTS: Overall efficacy for preventing infection caused by serotypes included in the vaccine was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45% to 66%). Efficacy among persons with diabetes mellitus was 84% (95% CI, 50% to 95%); with coronary vascular disease, 73% (95% CI, 23% to 90%); with congestive heart failure, 69% (95% CI, 17% to 88%); with chronic pulmonary diseases, 65% (95% CI, 26% to 83%); and with anatomic asplenia, 77% (95% CI, 14% to 95%). Efficacy was not documented for patients with alcoholism or cirrhosis, sickle cell disease, chronic renal failure, lymphoma, leukemia, or multiple myeloma, although sample sizes were small for these groups. Efficacy for immunocompetent persons older than 65 years was 75% (95% CI, 57% to 85%). Efficacy did not decline with increasing interval after vaccination: 5 to 8 years after vaccination it was 71% (95% CI, 24% to 89%), and 9 years or more after vaccination it was 80% (95% CI, 16% to 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Intensified efforts to improve pneumococcal vaccine coverage among certain populations for whom vaccination is currently recommended is indicated, but universal revaccination is not warranted at this time.
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
Cited by
Hao (2015) · doi:10.1002/14651858 · Cited by 11,321
Practice Guidelines for the Management of Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Adults
Bartlett, J. G., Dowell, S. F., Mandell, L. A., File, T. M., Musher, D. M., & Fine, M. J. (2000) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/313954 · Cited by 2,286
Infections in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus
Joshi, N., Caputo, G. M., Weitekamp, M. R., & Karchmer, A. W. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199912163412507 · Cited by 1,043
Vaccines for preventing pneumococcal infection in adults
Moberley, S., Holden, J., Tatham, D. P., & Andrews, R. M. (2013) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000422.pub3 · Cited by 960
Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Antimicrobial Treatment of Acute Bacterial Meningitis
Brouwer, M. C., Tunkel, A. R., & van de Beek, D. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00070-09 · Cited by 930
Metadata
- Authors
- Butler, J. C.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1993-10-20
- Volume
- 270
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 1826-1831
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4251925630
- Cited by
- 671
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.59
- 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: Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine efficacy. An evaluation of current recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.270.15.1826
- The paper
- Butler, J. C. (1993). Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine efficacy. An evaluation of current recommendations. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.15.1826
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.