The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rates of Medically Attended RSV Among US Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background: Adult respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines are in the late stages of development. A comprehensive synthesis of adult RSV burden is needed to inform public health decision-making. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies describing the incidence of medically attended RSV (MA-RSV) among US adults. We also identified studies reporting nasopharyngeal (NP) or nasal swab reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results with paired serology (4-fold-rise) or sputum (RT-PCR) to calculate RSV detection ratios quantifying improved diagnostic yield after adding a second specimen type (ie, serology or sputum). Results: We identified 14 studies with 15 unique MA-RSV incidence estimates, all based on NP or nasal swab RT-PCR testing alone. Pooled annual RSV-associated incidence per 100 000 adults ≥65 years of age was 178 (95% CI, 152‒204; n = 8 estimates) hospitalizations (4 prospective studies: 189; 4 model-based studies: 157), 133 (95% CI, 0‒319; n = 2) emergency department (ED) admissions, and 1519 (95% CI, 1109‒1929; n = 3) outpatient visits. Based on 6 studies, RSV detection was ∼1.5 times higher when adding paired serology or sputum. After adjustment for this increased yield, annual RSV-associated rates per 100 000 adults age ≥65 years were 267 hospitalizations (uncertainty interval [UI], 228‒306; prospective: 282; model-based: 236), 200 ED admissions (UI, 0‒478), and 2278 outpatient visits (UI, 1663‒2893). Persons <65 years with chronic medical conditions were 1.2−28 times more likely to be hospitalized for RSV depending on risk condition. Conclusions: The true burden of RSV has been underestimated and is significant among older adults and individuals with chronic medical conditions. A highly effective adult RSV vaccine would have substantial public health impact.
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
Cites
Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses
Riley, R. D., Higgins, J. P. T., & Deeks, J. J. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d549 · Cited by 2,884
Cited by
Efficacy and Safety of a Bivalent RSV Prefusion F Vaccine in Older Adults
Walsh, E. E., Pérez Marc, G., Zareba, A. M., Falsey, A. R., Jiang, Q., Patton, M., Polack, F. P., Llapur, C., Doreski, P. A., Ilangovan, K., et al. (2023) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2213836 · Cited by 668
Self-citationYuan, J., Chen, J., Zhao, Q., Xu, J., Li, X., Zhang, Y., Li, H., Chen, X., Zhao, L., Zhang, X., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2025.1558482 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- McLaughlin, J. M., Khan, F., Begier, E., Swerdlow, D. L., Jodar, L., & Falsey, A. R.
- Venue
- Open Forum Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-06-17
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- ofac300-ofac300
- ISSN
- 2328-8957 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4283027518
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Rates of Medically Attended RSV Among US Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ofid/ofac300
- The paper
- McLaughlin, J. M., Khan, F., Begier, E., Swerdlow, D. L., Jodar, L., & Falsey, A. R. (2022). Rates of Medically Attended RSV Among US Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Open Forum Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac300
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.