The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Protection against cholera from killed whole-cell oral cholera vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background Killed whole-cell oral cholera vaccines (kOCVs) are becoming a standard cholera control and prevention tool.However, vaccine efficacy and direct effectiveness estimates have varied, with differences in study design, location, follow-up duration, and vaccine composition posing challenges for public health decision making.We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to generate average estimates of kOCV efficacy and direct effectiveness from the available literature.Methods For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Review Library on July 9, 2016, and ISI Web of Science on July 11, 2016, for randomised controlled trials and observational studies that reported estimates of direct protection against medically attended confirmed cholera conferred by kOCVs.We included studies published on any date in English, Spanish, French, or Chinese.We extracted from the published reports the primary efficacy and effectiveness estimates from each study and also estimates according to number of vaccine doses, duration, and age group.The main study outcome was average efficacy and direct effectiveness of two kOCV doses, which we estimated with random-effect models.This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016048232.Findings Seven trials (with 695 patients with cholera) and six observational studies (217 patients with cholera) met the inclusion criteria, with an average two-dose efficacy of 58% (95% CI 42-69, I²=58%) and effectiveness of 76% (62-85, I²=0).Average two-dose efficacy in children younger than 5 years (30% [95% CI 15-42], I²=0%) was lower than in those 5 years or older (64% [58-70], I²=0%; p<0•0001).Two-dose efficacy estimates of kOCV were similar during the first 2 years after vaccination, with estimates of 56% (95% CI 42-66, I²=45%) in the first year and 59% (49-67, I²=0) in the second year.The efficacy reduced to 39% (13 to 57, I²=48%) in the third year, and 26% (-46 to 63, I²=74%) in the fourth year.Interpretation Two kOCV doses provide protection against cholera for at least 3 years.One kOCV dose provides at least short-term protection, which has important implications for outbreak management.kOCVs are effective tools for cholera control.
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
Cites
A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in combining results of studies
Sidik, K., & Jonkman, J. N. (2007) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2688 · Cited by 380
Raudenbush, S. W. (1984) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.85 · Cited by 302
Cited by
Looking beyond COVID-19 vaccine phase 3 trials
Kim, J. H., Marks, F., & Clemens, J. D. (2021) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01230-y · Cited by 585
Cholera epidemic in Yemen, 2016–18: an analysis of surveillance data
Camacho, A., Bouhenia, M., Alyusfi, R., Alkohlani, A., Naji, M. A. M., de Radiguès, X., Abubakar, A. M., Almoalmi, A., Seguin, C., Sagrado, M. J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30230-4 · Cited by 264
Self-citationLessler, J., Moore, S. M., Luquero, F. J., McKay, H. S., Grais, R., Henkens, M., Mengel, M., Dunoyer, J., M'bangombe, M., Lee, E. C., et al. (2018) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33050-7 · Cited by 192
Self-citationVaivada, T., Lassi, Z. S., Irfan, O., Salam, R. A., Das, J. K., Oh, C., Carducci, B., Jain, R. P., Als, D., Sharma, N., et al. (2022) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02725-2 · Cited by 89
Contrasting Epidemiology of Cholera in Bangladesh and Africa
Sack, D. A., Debes, A. K., Ateudjieu, J., Bwire, G., Ali, M., Ngwa, M. C., Mwaba, J., Chilengi, R., Orach, C. C., Boru, W., et al. (2021) · The Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiab440 · Cited by 38
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bi, Q., Ferreras, E., Pezzoli, L., Legros, D., Ivers, L. C., Date, K., Qadri, F., Digilio, L., Sack, D. A., Ali, M., Lessler, J., Luquero, F. J., Azman, A. S., Cavailler, P., Date, K., Sreenivasan, N., Matzger, H., Luquero, F., Grais, R., Wiesner, L., Ko, M., Rouzier, V., Peak, C., Qadri, F., Landegger, J., Lynch, J., Azman, A., Sack, D., Henkens, M., Ciglenecki, I., Ivers, L., Diggle, E., Weiss, M., Hinman, A., Maina, K., Mirza, I., Gimeno, G., & Levine, M.
- Venue
- The Lancet Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1080-1088
- ISSN
- 1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2736003652
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Protection against cholera from killed whole-cell oral cholera vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30359-6
- The paper
- Bi, Q., Ferreras, E., Pezzoli, L., Legros, D., Ivers, L. C., Date, K., Qadri, F., Digilio, L., Sack, D. A., Ali, M., Lessler, J., Luquero, F. J., Azman, A. S., Cavailler, P., Date, K., Sreenivasan, N., Matzger, H., Luquero, F., Grais, R., . . . Levine, M. (2017). Protection against cholera from killed whole-cell oral cholera vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30359-6
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.