Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 712

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Controlled Trial of Two Acellular Vaccines and One Whole-Cell Vaccine against Pertussis

Greco, Donato, Salmaso, Stefania, Mastrantonio, Paola, Giuliano, Marina, Tozzi, Alberto E., Anemona, Alessandra, Ciofi degli Atti, Marta L., Giammanco, Anna, Panei, Pietro, Blackwelder, William C., Klein, David L., Wassilak, Steven G.F.·1996·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concern about both safety and efficacy has made the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccines controversial. In some European countries, including Italy, the rate of vaccination against pertussis is low. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind trial in Italy in which infants were randomly assigned to vaccination at two, four, and six months of age with an acellular pertussis vaccine together with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DTP); a DTP vaccine containing whole-cell pertussis (manufactured by Connaught Laboratories); or diphtheria and tetanus toxoids without pertussis (DT). The acellular DTP vaccine was either one containing filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin, and pertussis toxin inactivated with formalin and glutaraldehyde (SmithKline Beecham) or one with filamentous hemagglutinin, pertactin, and genetically detoxified pertussis toxin (Chiron Biocine). Pertussis was defined as 21 days or more of paroxysmal cough, with infection confirmed by culture or serologic testing. RESULTS: The efficacy of each vaccine, given in three doses, against pertussis was determined for 14,751 children over an average of 17 months, with cases included in the analysis if cough began 30 days or more after the completion of immunization. For both of the acellular DTP vaccines, the efficacy was 84 percent (95 percent confidence intervals, 76 to 89 percent for Biocine DTP and 76 to 90 percent for SmithKline DTP), whereas the efficacy of the whole-cell DTP vaccine was only 36 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 14 to 52 percent). The antibody responses were greater to the acellular vaccines than to the whole-cell vaccine. Local and systemic adverse events were significantly more frequent after the administration of the whole-cell vaccine. For the acellular vaccines, the frequency of adverse events was similar to that in the control (DT) group. CONCLUSIONS: The two acellular DTP vaccines we studied were safe, immunogenic, and efficacious against pertussis, whereas the efficacy of the whole-cell DTP vaccine was unexpectedly low.

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/nejm199602083340601

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.

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

Cited by

See all 712

Metadata

Authors
Greco, D., Salmaso, S., Mastrantonio, P., Giuliano, M., Tozzi, A. E., Anemona, A., Ciofi degli Atti, M. L., Giammanco, A., Panei, P., Blackwelder, W. C., Klein, D. L., & Wassilak, S. G. F.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1996-02-08
Volume
334
Issue
6
Pages
341-349
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2328100509
Cited by
712
References
0
FWCI
59.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: A Controlled Trial of Two Acellular Vaccines and One Whole-Cell Vaccine against Pertussis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199602083340601
The paper
Greco, D., Salmaso, S., Mastrantonio, P., Giuliano, M., Tozzi, A. E., Anemona, A., Ciofi degli Atti, M. L., Giammanco, A., Panei, P., Blackwelder, W. C., Klein, D. L., & Wassilak, S. G. F. (1996). A Controlled Trial of Two Acellular Vaccines and One Whole-Cell Vaccine against Pertussis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199602083340601

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.