Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vacunas antineumocócicas conjugadas para prevenir la enfermedad neumocócica invasiva tipo vacuna y la neumonía definida por rayos X en niños menores de dos años de edad

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004977.pub2Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 06 octubre 2009see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Review
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
  1. Grupo Cochrane de Infecciones respiratorias agudas

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Marilla G Lucero

    Correspondencia a: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

    [email protected]

    [email protected]

  • Vernoni E Dulalia

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

  • Leilani T Nillos

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

  • Gail Williams

    Australian Centre for International and Tropical Health and Nutrition, School of Population Health, Queensland University, Herston, Australia

  • Rhea Angela N Parreño

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Philippines

  • Hanna Nohynek

    Department of Vaccines, Unit of Clinical Trials, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

  • Ian D Riley

    Australian Centre for International and Tropical Health and Nutrition, School of Population Health, Queensland University, Herston, Australia

  • Helena Makela

    Department of Vaccines, Unit of Clinical Trials, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

Contributions of authors

  1. Marilla G. Lucero (MGL), MD, MSc, PhD, guarantor of the review; conceived, designed and coordinated the review; primarily responsible for writing of review, data management, analysis and interpretation of data;

  2. Vernoni E. Dulalia (VED), MD, conducted the electronic and manual search of journal articles, screening search results with the main author, screening retrieved papers against eligibility criteria, reviewed materials together with a co‐author and encoded/exported relevant materials into the review, performed data extraction, appraised the methodological quality of included studies using Cochrane's new 'risk of bias' tool, wrote to authors of included studies for additional information, entered data into RevMan, assisted in writing the review, incorporated recommendations and revisions made by peer reviewers; proofread and copy edited the final review;

  3. Leilani T. Nillos (LTN), conducted the statistical analysis of data, entered data into RevMan, reviewed materials together with a co‐author and encoded relevant materials into the review, appraised the quality of evaluated studies and performed data extraction of these studies; incorporated recommendations and revisions made by peer reviewers, proofread and copy edited the final review;

  4. Gail Williams (GW), PhD, provided comments on the proposal and review in its preliminary stages of development; helped extensively in statistical analysis particularly in the clarification of the calculation of standard errors to be entered in Revman;

  5. Rhea Angela N. Parreño (RAP), provided assistance in statistical analysis in the first publication in 2004: reviewed materials together with the main author and encoded relevant materials into the review; appraised the quality of evaluated studies and performed data extraction of these studies; incorporation of recommendations and revisions made by peer reviewers; proofread and copy edited the final document;

  6. Hanna Nohynek (HN), MD, PhD, provided comments on the proposal and review; also provided majority of reference materials, helped contact authors of major articles included in this review;

  7. Ian Riley (IR), provided general advice on the proposal and gave comments to the review;

  8. Helena Makela (HM), MD, PhD, provided general advice on the proposal and gave comments to the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Manpower and physical resources from the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine and the ARIVAC Project under New Tropical Medicine Foundation, Inc., Philippines.

External sources

  • PneumoAdip, USA.

Declarations of interest

The Pneumococcal vaccines Accelerated Development and Introduction Plan (PneumoADIP) provided funding for the update of this review.

The authors collaborated with the ARIVAC consortium composed of scientists from the National Public Health Institute of Finland, the University of Queensland, University of Colorado, and sanofi‐pasteur, the pharmaceutical company which developed the 11‐valent PCV used in the phase three RCT in the Philippines. The primary author of this review was the principal investigator of the trial (Lucero 2009) included in this review.

Acknowledgements

  1. This work was performed under a collaborative arrangement with the PneumoADIP at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and was funded in full by the GAVI Alliance.

  2. Ms. Elizabeth Dooley, for providing the authors the impetus to complete this update, and for providing solutions to our countless queries.

  3. Ms. Nancy Santesso of the GRADE working team for having given us her time, expertise and patience in answering our queries regarding absolute effect calculations in the GradePro software.

  4. Ms. Sarah Thorning for updating our electronic searches.

  5. Dr Kenneth John Lim, for helping us with the use of EndNote.

  6. All the authors with whom we communicated through email and who gave us their time, talent, and data in the format we required.

  7. Vicky Debold, Kate O’Brien, Robert Ware, and Peter Morris for commenting on the draft of this updated review.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2009 Oct 06

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing vaccine‐type invasive pneumococcal disease and X‐ray defined pneumonia in children less than two years of age

Review

Marilla G Lucero, Vernoni E Dulalia, Leilani T Nillos, Gail Williams, Rhea Angela N Parreño, Hanna Nohynek, Ian D Riley, Helena Makela

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004977.pub2

2009 Jul 08

Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing vaccine‐type invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumonia with consolidation on x‐ray in children under two years of age

Review

Marilla G Lucero, Vernoni E Dulalia, Rhea Angela N Parreño, Dolores Lim‐Quianzon, Hanna Nohynek, Helena Makela, Gail Williams

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004977

Differences between protocol and review

The major difference between the protocol and this updated review is the use of the latest version of RevMan which is RevMan 5.01. As such, the method by which the presence of risk of bias and quality of the evidence provided by the studies included in the review is vastly different than what was stated in the protocol or even in the 2004 version of this review (Lucero 2004).

Notes

The title has changed from Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing vaccine‐type invasive pneumococcal disease and pneumonia with consolidation on X‐ray in children under two years of age to Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing vaccine‐type invasive pneumococcal disease and X‐ray defined pneumonia in children under two years of age. The reason for this is the change in terminology for the diagnosis of pneumonia using radiography. It used to be just the presence of consolidation. However, the WHO standardised the definition of X‐ray defined pneumonia which did not only include consolidation. Moreover, all the pneumococcal trialists, including the main author of this review, used the WHO standardised definitions in reading chest radiographs. Thus, the title change reflects the change in terminology. 

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.