SynthesisScientific reports2024
A meta-analysis on the potency of foot-and-mouth disease vaccines in different animal models.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Six Decades of Global Research on Bovine Babesiosis Vaccines: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of polypeptide, virus-like particles, and viral vector vaccines for foot-and-mouth disease (2020-2025).Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Immunostimulant-integrated acrylate nanocomposite adjuvants potentiate foot-and-mouth disease vaccine efficacy.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Article
- Cell surface display of VP1 of foot-and-mouth disease virus on Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Microbial cell factories · 2025Article
- Foot-and-mouth disease: genomic and proteomic structure, antigenic sites, serotype relationships, immune evasion, recent vaccine development strategies, and future perspectives.Veterinary research · 2025Review
- Use of virus-like particles and nanoparticle-based vaccines for combating picornavirus infections.Veterinary research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Whether mice can be used as a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) model has been debated for a long time. However, the major histocompatibility complex between pigs and mice is very different. In this study, the protective effects of FMD vaccines in different animal models were analyzed by a meta-analysis. The databases PubMed, China Knowledge Infrastructure, EMBASE, and Baidu Academic were searched. For this purpose, we evaluated evidence from 14 studies that included 869 animals with FMD vaccines. A random effects model was used to combine effects using Review Manager 5.4 software. A forest plot showed that the protective effects in pigs were statistically non-significant from those in mice [MH = 0.56, 90% CI (0.20, 1.53), P = 0.26]. The protective effects in pigs were also statistically non-significant from those in guinea pigs [MH = 0.67, 95% CI (0.37, 1.21), P = 0.18] and suckling mice [MH = 1.70, 95% CI (0.10, 28.08), P = 0.71]. Non-inferiority test could provide a hypothesis that the models (mice, suckling mice and guinea pigs) could replace pigs as FMDV vaccine models to test the protective effect of the vaccine. Strict standard procedures should be established to promote the assumption that mice and guinea pigs should replace pigs in vaccine evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.