Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 599

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals: A Randomized Trial

Wilde, James A., McMillan, Julia A., Serwint, Janet, Butta, Jeanne, O'Riordan, Mary Ann, Steinhoff, Mark C.·1999·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Data are limited and conflicting regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. SETTING: Two large teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Md. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred sixty-four hospital-based health care professionals without chronic medical problems were recruited; 49 participated for 2 seasons; 24 participated for 3 seasons. The mean age was 28.4 years, 75% were resident physicians, and 57% were women. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either an influenza vaccine or a control (meningococcal vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, or placebo). Serum samples for antibody assays were collected at the time of vaccination, 1 month after vaccination, and at the end of the influenza season. Active weekly surveillance for illness was conducted during each influenza epidemic period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serologically defined influenza infection (4-fold increase in hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies), days of febrile respiratory illness, and days absent from work. RESULTS: We conducted 359 person-winters of serologic surveillance (99.4% follow-up) and 4746 person-weeks of illness surveillance (100% follow-up). Twenty-four(13.4%) of 179 control subjects and 3 (1.7%) of 180 influenza vaccine recipients had serologic evidence of influenza type A or B infection during the study period. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88% for influenza A (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-97%; P=.001) and 89% for influenza B (95% CI, 14%-99%; P=.03). Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.41). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine is effective in preventing infection by influenza A and B in health care professionals and may reduce reported days of work absence and febrile respiratory illness. These data support a policy of annual influenza vaccination of health care professionals.

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.281.10.908

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.

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

Cited by

See all 599

Metadata

Authors
Wilde, J. A., McMillan, J. A., Serwint, J., Butta, J., O'Riordan, M. A., & Steinhoff, M. C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1999-03-10
Volume
281
Issue
10
Pages
908
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2093025410
Cited by
599
References
0
FWCI
20.16
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: Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals: A Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.281.10.908
The paper
Wilde, J. A., McMillan, J. A., Serwint, J., Butta, J., O'Riordan, M. A., & Steinhoff, M. C. (1999). Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in Health Care Professionals: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.281.10.908

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.