Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 457

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The respiratory syncytial virus vaccine landscape: lessons from the graveyard and promising candidates

Open access
Mazur, Natalie I, Higgins, Deborah, Nunes, Marta C, Melero, José A, Langedijk, Annefleur C, Horsley, Nicole, Buchholz, Ursula J, Openshaw, Peter J, McLellan, Jason S, Englund, Janet A, Mejias, Asuncion, Karron, Ruth A, Simões, Eric AF, Knezevic, Ivana, Ramilo, Octavio, Piedra, Pedro A, Chu, Helen Y, Falsey, Ann R, Nair, Harish, Kragten-Tabatabaie, Leyla, Greenough, Anne, Baraldi, Eugenio, Papadopoulos, Nikolaos G, Vekemans, Johan, Polack, Fernando P, Powell, Mair, Satav, Ashish, Walsh, Edward E, Stein, Renato T, Graham, Barney S, Bont, Louis J·2018·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

The global burden of disease caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is increasingly recognised, not only in infants, but also in older adults (aged ≥65 years). Advances in knowledge of the structural biology of the RSV surface fusion glycoprotein have revolutionised RSV vaccine development by providing a new target for preventive interventions. The RSV vaccine landscape has rapidly expanded to include 19 vaccine candidates and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in clinical trials, reflecting the urgency of reducing this global health problem and hence the prioritisation of RSV vaccine development. The candidates include mAbs and vaccines using four approaches: (1) particle-based, (2) live-attenuated or chimeric, (3) subunit, (4) vector-based. Late-phase RSV vaccine trial failures highlight gaps in knowledge regarding immunological protection and provide lessons for future development. In this Review, we highlight promising new approaches for RSV vaccine design and provide a comprehensive overview of RSV vaccine candidates and mAbs in clinical development to prevent one of the most common and severe infectious diseases in young children and older adults worldwide.

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 · 10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30292-5

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 457

Metadata

Authors
Mazur, N. I., Higgins, D., Nunes, M. C., Melero, J. A., Langedijk, A. C., Horsley, N., Buchholz, U. J., Openshaw, P. J., McLellan, J. S., Englund, J. A., Mejias, A., Karron, R. A., Simões, E. A., Knezevic, I., Ramilo, O., Piedra, P. A., Chu, H. Y., Falsey, A. R., Nair, H., Kragten-Tabatabaie, L., Greenough, A., Baraldi, E., Papadopoulos, N. G., Vekemans, J., Polack, F. P., Powell, M., Satav, A., Walsh, E. E., Stein, R. T., Graham, B. S., & Bont, L. J.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-10
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
e295-e311
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808415597
Cited by
457
References
7
FWCI
39.38
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: The respiratory syncytial virus vaccine landscape: lessons from the graveyard and promising candidates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30292-5
The paper
Mazur, N. I., Higgins, D., Nunes, M. C., Melero, J. A., Langedijk, A. C., Horsley, N., Buchholz, U. J., Openshaw, P. J., McLellan, J. S., Englund, J. A., Mejias, A., Karron, R. A., Simões, E. A., Knezevic, I., Ramilo, O., Piedra, P. A., Chu, H. Y., Falsey, A. R., Nair, H., . . . Bont, L. J. (2018). The respiratory syncytial virus vaccine landscape: lessons from the graveyard and promising candidates. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(18)30292-5

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.