CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 132Virology and Viral DiseasesVaccine Coverage and HesitancyBacterial Infections and Vaccines

The effectiveness of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine: a case control study

Harling, Richard, White, Joanne M., Ramsay, Mary E., Macsween, Karen F., Bosch, Corry van den·2005·Vaccine
DOI 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.10.020
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In 1998/1999, an outbreak of mumps occurred among children of a religious community in North East London. A case control study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine. One hundred and sixty-one cases of mumps were identified and 192 controls were selected. Fifty-one percent of cases and 77% of controls had a history at least one MMR vaccination. The observed effectiveness of any MMR vaccination adjusted for age, sex and general practice was 69% (95% CI: 41-84%). This is consistent with the results of other observational studies of mumps containing vaccines, but lower than the immunogenicity of mumps vaccines reported by clinical trials. This discrepancy is because observational studies tend to underestimate vaccine effectiveness, and because immunogenicity is not necessarily an accurate biological marker of vaccine effectiveness. Two doses of vaccine were more effective (88% (95% CI: 62-96%)) than a single dose (64% (95% CI: 40-78%)). The current two-dose vaccination programme remains the best method for controlling mumps infection in the community.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.10.020

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • VE was 69% (41 to 84) for at least 1 dose, adjusted for age, sex, and practice.

    “VE = 69% (41 to 84) for at least 1 dose, adjusted for age, sex, practice”

    From Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children (2012) · cites this paper as Harling 2005

  • VE for at least 1 dose was 65% (25 to 84), VE for 1 dose was 64% (40 to 78), and VE for 2 doses was 88% (62 to 96), all adjusted for age, sex, and practice.

    “VE for at least 1 dose = 65% (25 to 84) -VE for 1 dose = 64% (40 to 78) -VE for 2 doses = 88% (62 to 96) All adjusted for age, sex, practice”

    From Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children (2012) · cites this paper as Harling 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Harling, R., White, J. M., Ramsay, M. E., Macsween, K. F., & Bosch, C. V. D.
Affiliations
St George's Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Harling, Richard
ORCID
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-07
Volume
23
Issue
31
Pages
4070-4074
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.10.020
OpenAlex
W1969221734
Cited by
132
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Virology and Viral Diseases
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Bacterial Infections and Vaccines
Keywords
mumps, MMR vaccine, vaccine effectiveness, mumps outbreak, religious communities, immunogenicity, two-dose vaccination, vaccine dose number, North East London
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, London, Mumps, Case-Control Studies, Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine

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