Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34696291›Full record

ReviewVaccines2021

From Bench to Field: A Guide to Formulating and Evaluating Anti-Tick Vaccines Delving beyond Efficacy to Effectiveness.

Charles Ndawula

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Evolution of tick vaccinology.Parasitology · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Cocktail vaccine for the management ofFrontiers in immunology · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Co-Immunization Efficacy of Recombinant Antigens againstPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  14. Tick Vaccines and Concealed versus Exposed Antigens.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles NdawulaNational Agricultural Research Organization, P.O. Box 295, Entebbe, Wakiso 256, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-4978-936X
National Agricultural Research Institute · UG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ticks are ubiquitous blood-sucking ectoparasites capable of transmitting a wide range of pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi to animals and humans. Although the use of chemicals (acaricides) is the predominant method of tick-control, there are increasing incidents of acaricide tick resistance. Furthermore, there are concerns over accumulation of acaricide residues in meat, milk and in the environment. Therefore, alternative methods of tick-control have been proposed, of which anti-tick cattle vaccination is regarded as sustainable and user-friendly. Over the years, tremendous progress has been made in identifying and evaluating novel candidate tick vaccines, yet none of them have reached the global market. Until now, Bm86-based vaccines (Gavac™ in Cuba and TickGARD

Indexed as

anti-tick vaccineanti-tick vaccine effectivenessanti-tick vaccine efficacyanti-tick vaccine protection

Identifiers

PMID34696291
PMCPMC8539545
OpenAlexW3205737523

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.