Talk:Influenza vaccine: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:45, 26 January 2020 editTylerDurden8823 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers42,903 edits →Oral Influenza Vaccine in Trials ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:54, 10 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,699,108 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Viruses}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject Pharmacology}}.
(32 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{copied\|from=Influenza vaccine\|to=Universal flu vaccine}}
	{{Vital article\|topic=Biology\|subpage=Health\|level=5\|class=B}}
⚫	{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
		⚫	{{COI editnotice}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
Line 11:		Line 11:
	\|topic=natsci		\|topic=natsci
	}}		}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
		⚫	{{WikiProject Viruses\|importance=Top}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=mid\|translation=yes\|translation-imp=high}}
			{{WikiProject Pharmacology\|importance=mid}}
		⚫	}}
		⚫	{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 19:		Line 26:
	\|archive = Talk:Influenza vaccine/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Influenza vaccine/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
⚫	{{WikiProject ~~Viruses~~\|class=B\|~~importance~~=~~Top}}~~
⚫	{{WikiProject Medicine~~\|class=B~~\|importance=mid\|translation=yes\|translation-imp=high}}
⚫	{{WikiProject ~~Pharmacology\|class=B~~\|importance=~~mid~~}}
⚫	}}
	{{Connected contributor (paid)		{{Connected contributor (paid)
	\| User1 = WanderingJosh \| U1-employer = BiondVax Pharmaceuticals \| U1-client = \| U1-EH = yes \| U1-banned = \| U1-otherlinks = COI declared		\| User1 = WanderingJosh \| U1-employer = BiondVax Pharmaceuticals \| U1-client = \| U1-EH = yes \| U1-banned = \| U1-otherlinks = COI declared
Line 36:		Line 39:
	\| User10 = \| U10-employer = \| U10-client = \| U10-EH = \| U10-banned = \| U10-otherlinks =		\| User10 = \| U10-employer = \| U10-client = \| U10-EH = \| U10-banned = \| U10-otherlinks =
	}}		}}
⚫	{{COI editnotice}}
⚫	~~{{dashboard~~.~~wikiedu.org~~ ~~assignment~~ \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_Of_Cincinnati/Environmental_Public_Health_(Spring_Term) \| ~~assignments~~ = ] \| reviewers = ] }}

			==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
		⚫	] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ].

			{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	== Should include the strongly significant relationship between drop in healthcare worker vaccination and rise in nosocomial influenza-like illness in their elderly patients ==		== Should include the strongly significant relationship between drop in healthcare worker vaccination and rise in nosocomial influenza-like illness in their elderly patients ==

Line 54:		Line 58:
	DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005		DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005

	== ~~Very inconsistent stats~~ ==		== reformulation ==

	In our of the article, a CDC table of "U.S. vaccine effectiveness by start year" shows numbers in the range <u>10%-60%, averaging 41%</u>.

	A few paragraphs later, citing Cochrane, our Adults section says: "In unvaccinated adults, 16% get symptoms similar to the flu, while about 10% of vaccinated adults do. Vaccination decreased confirmed cases of influenza from about 2.4% to 1.1%." Simplistically, these proportions would suggest effectiveness rates around (16–10)/16 = <u>38%</u> or (2.4–1.1)/2.4 = <u>54%</u>, reasonably consistent with the CDC statistics.

	Those results are all substantially weaker than the claim that introduces the Medical Uses section: "A 2012 meta-analysis found that flu vaccination was effective <u>67 percent of the time</u>." Based on the rest of the paragraph (76%, 70%, 66%), I doubt this is referring carelessly to "Efficacy of TIV was shown in eight (67%) of the 12 seasons analysed" from the citation's abstract – but the full Lancet reference for the claim is not freely accessible online. Can anyone with Lancet access explain briefly why its 67% would turn out so much higher than the other estimates of vaccine effectiveness? Did CDC find an average effectiveness of just 41% because its sample or methodology was so very different or biased? Did Lancet measure effectiveness in a substantially different way, or were there heavy "adjustments" that our article hasn't made clear? Thanks if anyone can clarify such a large numerical discrepancy in the article. —] (]) 11:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

	:One issue is that vaccine effectiveness varies from year to year depending on what strains are prevalent in the population and what strains were picked for the vaccine. Here are some additional links: ; . ] (]) 12:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

	::Thanks for the quick reply. ECDC's results seem to be very similar to CDC's: Flu vaccine effectiveness peaks at 60% in the best year, and averages somewhere in the 40s. Osterholm's "67%" paper is the same one from Lancet, still not freely available. Might his study be benchmarked to a sample that includes lots of children, for whom vaccine effectiveness is higher? —] (]) 18:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

	== WHO vs. CDC recommendations? ==

	The includes , but it doesn't seem to me that the referenced quote means what is inferred by the change: "Annual vaccination (or re-vaccination, if the vaccine strains are identical) is recommended, particularly for high-risk groups."; this sounds like it's simply recommending that the vaccination programme be annual, not that it's recommending vaccination for nearly all people. I can't seem to find anything from WHO which clearly recommends this. ] (]) 04:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Bigbaby23}} I think you were the one introducing the WHO reference in the text. Despite searching, I wasn't able to find convincing evidence that WHO makes such a strong recommendation (but I may well be overlooking it in the document). You refer to an RfC in your edit summary, where is this RfC, could you link to it? There may be more background information for me to digest. Thanks. ]''']''' 06:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
	:::https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Influenza_vaccine/Archive_3#Lead_recommendation_summary] (]) 02:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

	The WHO recommendations in the article don't appear to agree with the older provided citation or with more recent sources at https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal) and http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/317344/Methods-assessing-influenza-vaccination-coverage-target-groups.pdf

	WHO recommends annual vaccination for:
	{{ublist\|pregnant women at any stage of pregnancy
	\|children aged between 6 months to 5 years
	\|elderly individuals (aged more than 65 years)
	\|individuals with chronic medical conditions
	\|health-care workers.
	}}
⚫	] (]) 06:03, 14 ~~October~~ ~~2019~~ (UTC)

	There is more clarification and detail in the "Recommendations" section. ] (]) 06:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

	== merge proposal for specific vaccines ==

	See ] for a proposal to merge Influvac, Optaflu, Fluzone together into ] (and make it easy to add other specific brands such as ] as separate sections rather than redirects or new articles). Please centralise discussion over there. ] (]) 22:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

	== Oral Influenza Vaccine in Trials ==

	{{u\|Daniel.Cardenas}}, this is not considered a secondary source as defined in ] and is not suitable for inclusion. It's too early to include this. Numerous promising treatments in the clinical trial phase do not pan out. If it were phase III and in a prominent journal (e.g., New England Journal of Medicine), I could perhaps understand the rationale for including it (perhaps in a Research section). When you say it's being covered in a secondary source-do you have a well-respected peer-reviewed review journal article that covers this specific oral influenza vaccine? Or a tertiary reference like a textbook? This seems like you are ] the material and not being respectful of ] (yes, I know it's optional but it really is the accepted guidance on Misplaced Pages for the right thing to do-this is well-established) in-why?

			The reformulation section is getting a bit long, and should likely be moved to ].
	Additionally, what is discussed in the lead should also be covered in the body of the article and should be highly noteworthy (this is not yet noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in the lead-as above, it's premature at this time since many experimental treatments in phase II clinical trials fail). I will see what the community thinks for broader consensus and further discussion. ] (]) 18:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
			Also the 2022 sourthern hemisphere formulation is here: https://surv.esr.cri.nz/PDF_surveillance/Virology/FluVac/FluVac2022.pdf
		⚫	--] (]) 21:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:54, 10 January 2024

Text and/or other creative content from Influenza vaccine was copied or moved into Universal flu vaccine. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Influenza vaccine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Influenza vaccine was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 4, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Viruses Top‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Translation Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Influenza vaccine.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

WanderingJosh (talk · contribs) has been paid by BiondVax Pharmaceuticals. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declared here

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jogabonito314. Peer reviewers: Jogabonito314.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Should include the strongly significant relationship between drop in healthcare worker vaccination and rise in nosocomial influenza-like illness in their elderly patients

A 2014 study of 62,343 hospitalized patients found that their risk of infection with an influenza-like illness while in hospital rose over five-fold, from 1.1% to 5.7% (P < 0.001) as rates of influenza vaccination among their healthcare workers dropped by about 76%, from 13.2% to 3.1% (P < 0.001).

J Hosp Infect. 2014 Mar;86(3):182-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005. Epub 2014 Feb 6.

Can influenza vaccination coverage among healthcare workers influence the risk of nosocomial influenza-like illness in hospitalized patients?

Amodio E1, Restivo V2, Firenze A2, Mammina C2, Tramuto F2, Vitale F2.

PMID: 24581755

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2014.01.005

reformulation

The reformulation section is getting a bit long, and should likely be moved to Historical_annual_reformulations_of_the_influenza_vaccine. Also the 2022 sourthern hemisphere formulation is here: https://surv.esr.cri.nz/PDF_surveillance/Virology/FluVac/FluVac2022.pdf --Onco p53 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories: