ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Expert consensus on the benefits of neuraminidase in conventional influenza vaccines: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- From Global Insights to Local Action: Bridging Vaccine Design and Manufacturing Gaps in H5N1 Pandemic Readiness.Vaccines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeasonal vaccination is the mainstay of human influenza prevention. Licensed influenza vaccines are regularly updated to account for viral mutations and antigenic drift and are standardised for their haemagglutinin content. However, vaccine effectiveness remains suboptimal. Neuraminidase (NA) evolves more gradually than hemagglutinin and has been demonstrated to provide added clinical benefits. However, NA is not currently a mandated or standardised component of influenza vaccines.
methodsHere, we collated expert opinions on the importance of NA in influenza vaccines in a two-stage Delphi survey. Nine statements about NA were formulated by a steering committee based on a targeted literature review. In the survey's first round, panellists recruited from three continents were requested to report on their agreement with each statement and estimate the strength of evidence for each statement. Panellists were also requested to explain their choice of answer and suggest revisions to the statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥ 75% of panellists agreed with a statement. If consensus was not reached for a statement, this statement was revised and included in the survey's second round.
resultsNine panellists with a broad range of NA-related expertise, including clinical, research, and public health experience, completed the survey. They agreed that anti-NA responses acquired via natural infection or vaccination are associated with protective immunity independently of haemagglutinin and that NA provided additional advantages including improving disease severity metrics. The experts identified several knowledge gaps concerning heterologous cross-reactivity of vaccine-induced anti-NA antibodies, correlations between anti-NA titres and reduced transmission or infection risks, and differences in anti-NA responses to seasonal influenza vaccines.
conclusionsNA is an important influenza vaccine component and is associated with specific benefits. These benefits would likely be greater if NA content were standardised. Additional research is needed to optimise vaccines for anti-NA effects.
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.