The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Controlled Trial of a Two-Component Acellular, a Five-Component Acellular, and a Whole-Cell Pertussis Vaccine
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Because of concern about safety and efficacy, no pertussis vaccine has been included in the vaccination program in Sweden since 1979. To provide data that might permit the reintroduction of a pertussis vaccine, we conducted a placebo-controlled trial of two acellular and one whole-cell pertussis vaccines. METHODS: After informed consent was obtained, 9829 children born in 1992 were randomly assigned to receive one of four vaccines: a two-component acellular diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine (2566 children), a five-component acellular DTP vaccine (2587 children), a whole-cell DTP vaccine licensed in the United States (2102 children), or (as a control) a vaccine containing diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DT) alone (2574 children). The vaccines were given at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, and the children were then followed for signs of pertussis for an additional 2 years (to a mean age of 21/2 years). RESULTS: The whole-cell vaccine was associated with significantly higher rates of protracted crying, cyanosis, fever, and local reactions than the other three vaccines. The rates of adverse events were similar for the acellular vaccines and the control DT vaccine. After three doses, the efficacy of the vaccines with respect to pertussis linked to a laboratory-confirmed case of pertussis or contact with an infected household member with paroxysmal cough for > or = 21 days was 58.9 percent for the two-component vaccine (95 percent confidence interval, 50.9 to 65.9 percent), 85.2 percent for the five-component vaccine (95 percent confidence interval, 80.6 to 88.8 percent), and 48.3 percent for the whole-cell vaccine (95 percent confidence interval, 37.0 to 57.6 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The five-component acellular pertussis vaccine we evaluated can be recommended for general use, since it has a favorable safety profile and confers sustained protection against pertussis. The two-component acellular vaccine and the whole-cell vaccine were less efficacious.
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
Cited by
Warfel, J. M., Zimmerman, L. I., & Merkel, T. J. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1314688110 · Cited by 644
Aluminum compounds as vaccine adjuvants
Gupta, R. (1998) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(98)00008-8 · Cited by 623
Liang, J. L., Tiwari, T., Moro, P., Messonnier, N. E., Reingold, A., Sawyer, M., & Clark, T. A. (2018) · MMWR. Recommendations and Reports · doi:10.15585/mmwr.rr6702a1 · Cited by 457
A search for serologic correlates of immunity to Bordetella pertussis cough illnesses
Cherry, J. D., Gornbein, J., Heininger, U., & Stehr, K. (1998) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/s0264-410x(98)00226-6 · Cited by 434
Pertussis: Microbiology, Disease, Treatment, and Prevention
Kilgore, P. E., Salim, A. M., Zervos, M. J., & Schmitt, H.-J. (2016) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00083-15 · Cited by 434
Metadata
- Authors
- Gustafsson, L., Hallander, H. O., Olin, P., Reizenstein, E., & Storsaeter, J.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1996-02-08
- Volume
- 334
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 349-356
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2321584961
- Cited by
- 737
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 50.15
- 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
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 a Two-Component Acellular, a Five-Component Acellular, and a Whole-Cell Pertussis Vaccine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199602083340602
- The paper
- Gustafsson, L., Hallander, H. O., Olin, P., Reizenstein, E., & Storsaeter, J. (1996). A Controlled Trial of a Two-Component Acellular, a Five-Component Acellular, and a Whole-Cell Pertussis Vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199602083340602
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.