Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,051

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Protective Efficacy of Polyvalent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine

Open access
Shapiro, Eugene D., Berg, Anne T., Austrian, Robert, Schroeder, Donna, Parcells, Valerie, Margolis, Amy, Adair, Russell K., Clemens, John D.·1991·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the protective efficacy of pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine has been demonstrated in randomized trials in young African gold miners, there has been controversy about its efficacy in older Americans at risk for serious pneumococcal infections. To assess the vaccine's protective efficacy against invasive pneumococcal infections, we conducted a hospital-based case-control study of the efficacy of pneumococcal vaccine in adults with a condition recognized to be an indication for receiving the vaccine. METHODS: From 1984 to 1990, adults in whom Streptococcus pneumoniae was isolated from any normally sterile site were identified by prospective surveillance in the microbiology laboratories of 11 large hospitals; those with an indication for pneumococcal vaccine were enrolled as case patients. For each case patient, one control was matched according to age, underlying illness, and site of hospitalization. We contacted all providers of medical care to ascertain each subject's history of immunization with pneumococcal vaccine. Isolates of S. pneumoniae were serotyped by an investigator unaware of the subject's vaccination history. RESULTS: Thirteen percent of the 1,054 case patients and 20 percent of the 1,054 matched controls had received pneumococcal vaccine (P less than 0.001). When vaccine was given in either its 14-valent or its 23-valent form, its aggregate protective efficacy (calculated as a percentage: 1 minus the odds ratio of having been vaccinated times 100) against infections caused by the serotypes represented in the vaccine was 56 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 42 percent to 67 percent; P less than 0.00001) for all 983 patients infected with a serotype represented in the vaccine, 61 percent for a subgroup of 808 immunocompetent patients (95 percent confidence interval, 47 percent to 72 percent; P less than 0.00001), and 21 percent for a subgroup of 175 immunocompromised patients (95 percent confidence interval, -55 percent to 60 percent; P = 0.48). The vaccine was not efficacious against infections caused by serotypes not represented in the vaccine (protective efficacy, -73 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, -263 percent to 18 percent; P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Polyvalent pneumococcal vaccine is efficacious in preventing invasive pneumococcal infections in immunocompetent patients with indications for its administration. This vaccine should be used more widely.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199111213252101

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 1,051

Metadata

Authors
Shapiro, E. D., Berg, A. T., Austrian, R., Schroeder, D., Parcells, V., Margolis, A., Adair, R. K., & Clemens, J. D.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1991-11-21
Volume
325
Issue
21
Pages
1453-1460
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2342228817
Cited by
1,051
References
1
FWCI
29.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

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.