Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 380

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Efficacy of an Acellular Pertussis Vaccine among Adolescents and Adults

Ward, Joel I., Cherry, James D., Chang, Swei-Ju, Partridge, Susan, Lee, Hang, Treanor, John, Greenberg, David P., Keitel, Wendy, Barenkamp, Stephen, Bernstein, David I., Edelman, Robert, Edwards, Kathryn·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pertussis immunization of adults may be necessary to improve the control of a rising burden of disease and infection. This trial of an acellular pertussis vaccine among adolescents and adults evaluated the incidence of pertussis, vaccine safety, immunogenicity, and protective efficacy. METHODS: Bordetella pertussis infections and illnesses were prospectively assessed in 2781 healthy subjects between the ages of 15 and 65 years who were enrolled in a national multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of an acellular pertussis vaccine. Subjects received either a dose of a tricomponent acellular pertussis vaccine or a hepatitis A vaccine (control) and were monitored for 2.5 years for illnesses with cough that lasted for more than 5 days. Each illness was evaluated with use of a nasopharyngeal aspirate for culture and polymerase-chain-reaction assay, and serum samples from patients in both acute and convalescent stages of illness were analyzed for changes in antibodies to nine B. pertussis antigens. RESULTS: Of the 2781 subjects, 1391 received the acellular pertussis vaccine and 1390 received the control vaccine. The groups had similar ages and demographic characteristics, and the median duration of follow-up was 22 months. The acellular pertussis vaccine was safe and immunogenic. There were 2672 prolonged illnesses with cough, but the incidence of this nonspecific outcome did not vary between the groups, even when stratified according to age, season, and duration of cough. On the basis of the primary pertussis case definition, vaccine protection was 92 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 32 to 99 percent). Among unimmunized controls with illness, 0.7 percent to 5.7 percent had B. pertussis infection, and the percentage increased with the duration of cough. On the basis of other case definitions, the incidence of pertussis in the controls ranged from 370 to 450 cases per 100,000 person-years. CONCLUSIONS: The acellular pertussis vaccine was protective among adolescents and adults, and its routine use might reduce the overall disease burden and transmission to children.

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/nejmoa050824

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 380

Metadata

Authors
Ward, J. I., Cherry, J. D., Chang, S.-J., Partridge, S., Lee, H., Treanor, J., Greenberg, D. P., Keitel, W., Barenkamp, S., Bernstein, D. I., Edelman, R., & Edwards, K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-10-13
Volume
353
Issue
15
Pages
1555-1563
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2036897121
Cited by
380
References
0
FWCI
30.30
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: Efficacy of an Acellular Pertussis Vaccine among Adolescents and Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa050824
The paper
Ward, J. I., Cherry, J. D., Chang, S.-J., Partridge, S., Lee, H., Treanor, J., Greenberg, D. P., Keitel, W., Barenkamp, S., Bernstein, D. I., Edelman, R., & Edwards, K. (2005). Efficacy of an Acellular Pertussis Vaccine among Adolescents and Adults. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa050824

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.