Cited by 85Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchImmune responses and vaccinations

Adult Vaccination as a Protective Factor for Dementia: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Population-Based Observational Studies

Open access
Wu, Xinhui, Yang, Haixia, He, Sixian, Xia, Ting, Chen, Diang, Zhou, Yexin, Liu, Jin, Liu, MengSi +1 more·2022·Frontiers in Immunology

Abstract

Background: Common vaccinations may have impacts on dementia risk, but current evidence is inconsistent. We therefore investigated the association between vaccinations and dementia risk by systematic review and meta-analysis approach. Methods: We conducted an extensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared the risk of dementia in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled as measures. Results: Of the 9124 records initially retrieved, 17 studies with 1857134 participants were included in our analysis. The overall pooled results showed that vaccinations were associated with a 35% lower dementia risk (HR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.60-0.71, P overall effect < 0.001; I 2 = 91.8%, P heterogeneity <0.001). All types of vaccination were associated with a trend toward reduced dementia risk, with rabies (HR=0.43), tetanus & diphtheria & pertussis (Tdap) (HR=0.69), herpes zoster (HR=0.69), influenza (HR=0.74), hepatitis A (HR=0.78), typhoid (HR=0.80), and hepatitis B (HR=0.82) vaccinations being significant. Individuals with more full vaccination types and more annual influenza vaccinations were less likely to develop dementia. Gender and age had no effect on this association. Conclusion: Routine adult vaccinations are associated with a significant reduction in dementia risk and may be an effective strategy for dementia prevention. Further research is needed to elucidate the causal effects of this association and the underlying mechanisms.

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 · 10.3389/fimmu.2022.872542

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Meta-analyses of observational studies suggest that vaccinations against rabies, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, herpes zoster, influenza, hepatitis A, typhoid and hepatitis B are associated with lower dementia risk, although this may be partly due to confounding factors.

    “Meta-analyses of observational studies suggest that vaccinations against rabies, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, herpes zoster, influenza, hepatitis A, typhoid and hepatitis B are associated with lower dementia risk, although this may be partly due to confounding factors as people who receive vaccinations may have different health behaviours and access to health care compared to those who do not.(”
  • A nationwide Swedish study did not find a higher incidence of dementia in 7992 individuals with caries and periodontal disease than 29,182 matched controls over 7.6 years.

    “A nationwide Swedish study controlling for demographic, socioeconomic and wider health conditions of people aged 40 to 80, did not find a higher incidence of dementia in 7992 individuals with caries and periodontal disease than 29,182 matched controls over 7.6 years.(367)”

    From Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2024 report of the Lancet standing Commission (2024) · cites this paper as [367]

    The Results, under Description of the Included Studies (page not provided), describe studies of vaccination and dementia, including a Taiwanese cohort of periodontitis patients. A search for the Swedish caries-and-periodontal-disease study, its sample sizes, and its 7.6-year follow-up found no passage addressing the claimed comparison or outcome. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wu, X., Yang, H., He, S., Xia, T., Chen, D., Zhou, Y., Liu, J., Liu, M., & Sun, Z.
Affiliations
  • Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
  • Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine (CN)
  • University of South China (CN)
Corresponding author
Sun, Zhen
Venue
Frontiers in Immunology
Published
2022-05-03
Volume
13
Pages
872542-872542
ISSN
1664-3224 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4225332040
Cited by
73
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Immunology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immune responses and vaccinations
Keywords
adult vaccination, dementia risk, dementia prevention, rabies vaccination, Tdap vaccination, herpes zoster vaccination, influenza vaccination, hepatitis A vaccination, typhoid vaccination, hepatitis B vaccination, protective factors
MeSH terms
Adult, Dementia, Diphtheria, Humans, Influenza, Human, Vaccination, Protective Factors

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