ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Systematic review protocol: evaluation of candidate platforms and vaccines for emerging and re-emerging viral threats.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Systematic review protocol: evaluation of candidate platforms and vaccines for emerging and re-emerging viral threats.Systematic reviews · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmerging viral threats such as coronavirus, influenza, Lassa fever, Mpox, and Nipah virus continue to pose significant global health challenges. The development and deployment of effective vaccines are essential for outbreak control and pandemic preparedness. This protocol describes a systematic review that will synthesize evidence on vaccine candidates targeting high-priority viral threats and major vaccine platforms.
methodsWe will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing vaccine candidates for specified viruses (coronavirus, Lassa fever, Nipah virus, and Mpox) and platforms (protein-based, viral vector, and RNA) in the human populations. To encompass the full vaccine development landscape, exploratory and preclinical studies may also be included (any type of original research). Data sources will include MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid (including ClinicalTrials.gov), and Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), and grey literature (including conference proceedings, dissertations, trial registries, and company websites). Risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (RoB-2) and Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), and certainty of evidence will be evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes are safety, immunogenicity, and vaccine efficacy or effectiveness, prioritised for their critical role in outbreak management and in guiding regulatory approval, public health policy, and clinical decision-making. Meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate, using both fixed- and random-effects models. Subgroup analyses will be performed to explore heterogeneity based on virus type, vaccine platform, and outcome measures, where appropriate. DISCUSSION: This review will provide a comprehensive synthesis of vaccine development efforts across multiple platforms and pathogens with epidemic or pandemic potential. It will inform future research, policy, and investment decisions in global health preparedness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251082338 on 6 October 2025.
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.