Cited by 132Peripheral Neuropathies and DisordersInfluenza Virus Research StudiesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Guillain-Barre syndrome and influenza vaccines: a meta-analysis.

Martín Arias, L.H., Sanz, R., Sáinz, M., Treceño, C., Carvajal, A.·2015·Vaccine

Abstract

Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) have been occasionally associated with influenza vaccines; this possible risk, even if rare, is a matter of much concern. To investigate the strength of this association, a systematic review and a meta-analysis have been conducted; for the purpose, controlled observational studies addressing the risk of GBS associated with different influenza vaccines were sought. We finally selected 39 studies of interest published between 1981 and 2014 (seasonal influenza vaccines, 22; pandemic influenza vaccines, 16; both vaccines simultaneously administered, 1); funnel plot did not identify publication bias. At the association between any influenza vaccine - whether seasonal or pandemic - with GBS, the overall relative risk was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.20-1.66). Pandemic vaccines presented a higher risk (RR=1.84; 95% CI, 1.36-2.50) compared to seasonal vaccines (RR=1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48); the latter should be considered as marginally statistically significant. Pandemic adjuvanted vaccines were not found to be related to a higher risk compared to non-adjuvanted vaccines. The results of the present meta-analysis point to a small but statistically significant association between influenza vaccines, particularly the pandemic ones, and GBS, which is consistent with current explanations upon possible mechanisms for this condition to appear.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.013

Cites

54 of 54 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?

  • A meta-analysis of 39 controlled observational studies found that the relative risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome following receipt of any influenza vaccine was 1.41.

    “A metanalysis of 39 controlled observational studies found that the relative risk of GBS following receipt of any influenza vaccine was 1.41 (Martin Arias et al., 2015).”

    From Vaccine Safety: Myths and Misinformation (2020) · cites this paper as Martin Arias et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martín Arias, L. H., Sanz, R., Sáinz, M., Treceño, C., & Carvajal, A.
Affiliations
Universidad de Valladolid (ES)
Corresponding author
Carvajal, A.
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
33
Issue
31
Pages
3773-3778
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W324672716
Cited by
132
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
Guillain-Barré syndrome, influenza vaccination, vaccine adverse events, pandemic influenza vaccine, seasonal influenza vaccine, adjuvanted vaccine, relative risk, vaccine safety
MeSH terms
Influenza Vaccines, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Observational Studies as Topic

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