The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Efficacy of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Vaccination of Newborns and Infants in the Prevention of Tuberculosis: Meta-Analyses of the Published Literature
Abstract
Objective. To quantify the efficacy of vaccination of infants with bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) against tuberculosis. Data sources. MEDLINE with index terms BCG vaccine, tuberculosis, and human; lists of all known studies provided by experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and other organizations. Study selection. A total of 1264 articles and abstracts were reviewed for details on BCG vaccination, the availability of concurrent vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and a tuberculosis outcome. Seventy articles were reviewed in depth for method of vaccine allocation used to create comparable groups, age at vaccination of study participants, comparability of surveillance and follow-up of recipient and concurrent control groups in trials, an appropriately defined control group in case-control studies, and outcome measures (tuberculosis cases and/or deaths). Five prospective trials and eleven case-control studies of vaccination during infancy were included in the present analyses. Data extraction. We recorded study design, age range of study population, number of patients enrolled, efficacy of vaccine, location of the study, and a series of items to assess the potential for bias in study design, follow-up, and diagnosis. We extracted or computed vaccine efficacy by years since vaccination wherever possible. At least two readers independently extracted data and evaluated data validity. Data synthesis. The relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) for tuberculosis in vaccinated versus unvaccinated infants was the measure of vaccine efficacy analyzed. A random-effects method estimated a weighted average RR or OR from data extracted from the trials and case-control studies. The protective effect was then computed by 1 - RR or 1 - OR. Overall, the protective effect of vaccination against cases of tuberculosis was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.62 to 0.83) when estimated from four randomized controlled trials, and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64) when estimated from nine case-control studies. Five trials reporting deaths from tuberculosis showed a BCG protective effect of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.12 to 0.86), five studies reporting on meningitis showed a protective effect of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.82), and three studies of disseminated tuberculosis showed a protective effect of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.88). Three case-control studies included separate results for laboratory-confirmed cases of tuberculosis. These studies documented a protective effect of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.93). In a random-effects regression model of the nine case-control studies, study validity score explained 15% of the heterogeneity among study-estimated protective effects, suggesting that better studies reported greater efficacy. Three trials and six case-control studies provided some age-specific information that allowed us to examine the duration of BCG efficacy. Most of this evidence suggested that BCG efficacy may persist through 10 years after infant vaccination. Conclusion. BCG vaccination of newborns and infants significantly reduces the risk of tuberculosis—by over 50%, on average. Protection has been observed across many populations, study designs, and forms of tuberculosis. Rates of protection against cases that are confirmed by laboratory tests, reflecting reduced error in disease classification and consequently more accurate estimates of BCG efficacy, are highest at 83%.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cited by
Trunz, B. B., Fine, P., & Dye, C. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68507-3 · Cited by 1,114
Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis
Harris, R. J., Deeks, J. J., Altman, D. G., Bradburn, M. J., Harbord, R. M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2008) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0800800102 · Cited by 1,027
Protection by BCG vaccine against tuberculosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Mangtani, P., Abubakar, I., Ariti, C., Beynon, R., Pimpin, L., Fine, P. E. M., Rodrigues, L. C., Smith, P. G., Lipman, M., Whiting, P. F., et al. (2014) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cit790 · Cited by 995
Factors That Influence the Immune Response to Vaccination
Zimmermann, P., & Curtis, N. (2019) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00084-18 · Cited by 939
The success and failure of BCG — implications for a novel tuberculosis vaccine
Andersen, P., & Doherty, T. M. (2005) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro1211 · Cited by 788
Metadata
- Authors
- Colditz, G. A., Berkey, C. S., Mosteller, F., Brewer, T. F., Wilson, M. E., Burdick, E., & Fineberg, H. V.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 1995-07-01
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-35
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W4205161959
- Cited by
- 763
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.41
- 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: The Efficacy of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Vaccination of Newborns and Infants in the Prevention of Tuberculosis: Meta-Analyses of the Published Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.96.1.29
- The paper
- Colditz, G. A., Berkey, C. S., Mosteller, F., Brewer, T. F., Wilson, M. E., Burdick, E., & Fineberg, H. V. (1995). The Efficacy of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Vaccination of Newborns and Infants in the Prevention of Tuberculosis: Meta-Analyses of the Published Literature. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.96.1.29
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.