4.5 Review

A Systematic Review of the Effect of Rotavirus Vaccination on Diarrhea Outcomes Among Children Younger Than 5 Years

期刊

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 992-998

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001232

关键词

rotavirus; vaccine; children; global

资金

  1. Maternal Child Epidemiology Estimation (MCEE) grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Rotavirus is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable diarrhea among children under 5 globally. Rotavirus vaccination has been shown to prevent severe rotavirus infections with varying efficacy and effectiveness by region. Methods: We sought to generate updated region-specific estimates of rotavirus vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. We systematically reviewed published vaccine efficacy and effectiveness studies to assess the region-specific effect of rotavirus vaccination on select diarrheal morbidity and mortality outcomes in children under 5 years of age. We employed meta-analytic methods to generate pooled effect sizes by Millennium Development Goal region. Results: Rotavirus vaccination was both efficacious and effective in preventing rotavirus diarrhea, severe rotavirus diarrhea and rotavirus hospitalizations among children under 5 across all regions represented by the 48 included studies. Efficacy against severe rotavirus diarrhea ranged from 90.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 82.3-95.0] in the developed region to 88.4% (95% CI: 67.1-95.9) in Eastern/Southeastern Asia, 79.6% (95% CI: 71.3-85.5) in Latin America and the Caribbean, 50.0% (95% CI: 34.4-61.9) in Southern Asia and 46.1% (95% CI: 29.1-59.1) in sub-Saharan Africa. Region-specific effectiveness followed a similar pattern. There was also evidence of vaccine efficacy against severe diarrhea and diarrheal hospitalizations. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the protective efficacy and effectiveness of rotavirus vaccination against rotavirus diarrheal outcomes among children under 5 globally.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据