Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vaccines for the common cold

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub5Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 18 May 2017see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Daniel Simancas‐Racines

    Correspondence to: Cochrane Ecuador, Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC), Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Quito, Ecuador

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Juan VA Franco

    Argentine Cochrane Centre, Instituto Universitario del Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina

  • Claudia V Guerra

    Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Quito, Ecuador

  • Maria L Felix

    Department of Neonatology, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Quito, Ecuador

  • Ricardo Hidalgo

    Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Quito, Ecuador

  • Maria José Martinez‐Zapata

    Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain

    Cochrane Ecuador. Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC). Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Quito, Ecuador

Contributions of authors

  • Conceiving the review: DSR

  • Designing the review: DSR, CVG, MLF, RH

  • Co‐ordinating the review: DSR

  • Data collection for the review: DSR

  • Screening search results: JVAF, MJMZ

  • Appraising quality of papers: DSR, CVG, RH, JVAF, MJMZ

  • Extracting data from papers: DSR

  • Writing to authors of papers for additional information: DSR

  • Obtaining and screening data on unpublished studies: JVAF, MJMZ

  • Data management for the review: DSR

  • Entering data into Review Manager 5: DSR, JVAF, MJMZ

  • Interpretation of data: All authors

  • Providing a methodological perspective: MJMZ

  • Providing a clinical perspective: CVG, MLF, RH

  • Writing the review: DSR, JVAF, MJMZ

  • All authors contributed to the improvement of this updated review and approved the final version of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Universidad Tecnológica Equinoccial, Ecuador.

    Methodological

  • Centro de Investigación en Salud Pública y Epidemiología Clínica (CISPEC). Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Eugenio Espejo, Ecuador.

    Methodological

  • Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano, Argentina.

    Methodological

External sources

  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain.

    Mª José Martinez Zapata is funded by a Miguel Servet research contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CP15/00116).

Declarations of interest

Daniel Simancas‐Racines: None known.
Juan VA Franco: None known.
Claudia V Guerra: None known.
Maria L Felix: None known.
Ricardo Hidalgo: None known.
Maria José Martinez‐Zapata: None known.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Tom Jefferson and David Tyrell, who coauthored the first published version of this review; Anne Lyddiatt, Gulam Khandaker, Lisa Jackson, Mark Griffin, and Meenu Singh for commenting on the draft protocol; and Theresa Wrangham, John Jordan, Viviana Rodriguez, and Meenu Singh for commenting on the first draft review.

The authors wish to express their thanks to Liz Dooley, Managing Editor of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, for her comments, which improved the quality of this review.

Daniel Simancas‐Racines is a PhD candidate at the Department of Pediatrics, Gynecology and Obstetrics, and Preventive Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2022 Dec 14

Vaccines for the common cold

Review

Camila Montesinos-Guevara, Diana Buitrago-Garcia, Maria L Felix, Claudia V Guerra, Ricardo Hidalgo, Maria José Martinez-Zapata, Daniel Simancas-Racines

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub6

2017 May 18

Vaccines for the common cold

Review

Daniel Simancas‐Racines, Juan VA Franco, Claudia V Guerra, Maria L Felix, Ricardo Hidalgo, Maria José Martinez‐Zapata

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub5

2013 Jun 12

Vaccines for the common cold

Review

Daniel Simancas‐Racines, Claudia V Guerra, Ricardo Hidalgo

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub4

2011 Apr 13

Vaccines for the common cold

Protocol

Maria L Felix, Claudia V Guerra, Miguel A Hinojosa, Clarita I Cabezas, Ricardo Hidalgo, Diana H Samaniego, Susana Nicola

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002190.pub3

Differences between protocol and review

Three new authors contributed to this update: Juan VA Franco, Maria L Felix, and Maria José Martinez‐Zapata.

We considered risk of bias as unclear for blinding in the previous version of this review. For this update, we reassessed this as low because the study used a placebo.

We added two additional primary outcomes, vaccine safety and mortality related to the vaccine, to summary of findings Table for the main comparison.

We did not search Scirus for this update since this service became unavailable in 2014.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for the included study
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for the included study

Comparison 1 Adenovirus vaccines versus placebo, Outcome 1 Incidence of the common cold.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Adenovirus vaccines versus placebo, Outcome 1 Incidence of the common cold.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Virus vaccines compared to placebo for preventing the common cold in healthy people

Virus vaccines compared to placebo for preventing the common cold in healthy people

Patient or population: healthy people
Settings: outpatients at Great Lakes Naval Training Center
Intervention: virus vaccines for preventing the common cold¹
Comparison: placebo

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No. of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Placebo

Virus vaccines for preventing the common cold

Incidence of the common cold
Number of participants with common cold by group
Follow‐up: mean 9 weeks

Study population

RR 0.95
(0.45 to 2.02)

2307
(1 study)²

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low³ ⁴

12 per 1000

11 per 1000
(5 to 24)

Vaccine safety

The study stated that there were no adverse events related to the vaccine.

2307
(1 study)²

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low³ ⁵

Mortality related to the vaccine ‐ not reported

See comments

See comments

See comments

See comments

See comments

The included study did not report this outcome.

*The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1Adenovirus vaccine used for preventing the common cold.
2Griffin 1970.
3Downgraded one level due to high risk of bias for this outcome.
4Downgraded one level due to imprecision: few events (N = 27) and wide 95% confidence interval.
5Downgraded one level due to imprecision: zero events reported in a narrative fashion.

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Virus vaccines compared to placebo for preventing the common cold in healthy people
Comparison 1. Adenovirus vaccines versus placebo

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Incidence of the common cold Show forest plot

1

2307

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.45, 2.02]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Adenovirus vaccines versus placebo