| . | Quality assessment . | Summary of findings . | . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | . | . | Directness . | No. of events . | Effect . | . | ||
| No. of studies . | Design . | Limitations . | Consistency . | Generalizability to population of interest . | Generalizability to intervention of interest . | Intervention . | Control . | Relative reduction (95% CI) . | Comments . |
| Effectiveness against very severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 43 | 255 | 74% (35–90%) | |
| Effectiveness against severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 155 | 926 | 61% (38–75%) | |
| Effectiveness against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | None | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 216 | 1250 | 47% (22–64%) | |
| One20 | Matched case control | None | NA | Rural hospital in the Northern Territory of Australia | Monovalent vaccine (−0.5) | 10 | 58 | 57% (<0–83%) | |
| Efficacy against severe rotavirus infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 59 | 358 | 89.1% (77.9–94.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against severe GI infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two30,31 | RCT | None | Borderline heterogeneity from meta-analysis (P = 0.07); all studies show benefit | Europe and Latin America | All studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 598 | 808 | 44.2% (32.8–53.7%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 30 | 290 | 92.7% (77.2–97.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against GI hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | >292 | >477 | 56% (39–73%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against any rotavirus (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two4,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | One of two studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 203 | 607 | 74.4% (63.2–82.2%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| . | Quality assessment . | Summary of findings . | . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | . | . | Directness . | No. of events . | Effect . | . | ||
| No. of studies . | Design . | Limitations . | Consistency . | Generalizability to population of interest . | Generalizability to intervention of interest . | Intervention . | Control . | Relative reduction (95% CI) . | Comments . |
| Effectiveness against very severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 43 | 255 | 74% (35–90%) | |
| Effectiveness against severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 155 | 926 | 61% (38–75%) | |
| Effectiveness against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | None | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 216 | 1250 | 47% (22–64%) | |
| One20 | Matched case control | None | NA | Rural hospital in the Northern Territory of Australia | Monovalent vaccine (−0.5) | 10 | 58 | 57% (<0–83%) | |
| Efficacy against severe rotavirus infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 59 | 358 | 89.1% (77.9–94.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against severe GI infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two30,31 | RCT | None | Borderline heterogeneity from meta-analysis (P = 0.07); all studies show benefit | Europe and Latin America | All studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 598 | 808 | 44.2% (32.8–53.7%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 30 | 290 | 92.7% (77.2–97.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against GI hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | >292 | >477 | 56% (39–73%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against any rotavirus (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two4,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | One of two studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 203 | 607 | 74.4% (63.2–82.2%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
RCT: randomized controlled trial.
| . | Quality assessment . | Summary of findings . | . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | . | . | Directness . | No. of events . | Effect . | . | ||
| No. of studies . | Design . | Limitations . | Consistency . | Generalizability to population of interest . | Generalizability to intervention of interest . | Intervention . | Control . | Relative reduction (95% CI) . | Comments . |
| Effectiveness against very severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 43 | 255 | 74% (35–90%) | |
| Effectiveness against severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 155 | 926 | 61% (38–75%) | |
| Effectiveness against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | None | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 216 | 1250 | 47% (22–64%) | |
| One20 | Matched case control | None | NA | Rural hospital in the Northern Territory of Australia | Monovalent vaccine (−0.5) | 10 | 58 | 57% (<0–83%) | |
| Efficacy against severe rotavirus infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 59 | 358 | 89.1% (77.9–94.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against severe GI infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two30,31 | RCT | None | Borderline heterogeneity from meta-analysis (P = 0.07); all studies show benefit | Europe and Latin America | All studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 598 | 808 | 44.2% (32.8–53.7%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 30 | 290 | 92.7% (77.2–97.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against GI hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | >292 | >477 | 56% (39–73%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against any rotavirus (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two4,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | One of two studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 203 | 607 | 74.4% (63.2–82.2%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| . | Quality assessment . | Summary of findings . | . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | . | . | . | Directness . | No. of events . | Effect . | . | ||
| No. of studies . | Design . | Limitations . | Consistency . | Generalizability to population of interest . | Generalizability to intervention of interest . | Intervention . | Control . | Relative reduction (95% CI) . | Comments . |
| Effectiveness against very severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 43 | 255 | 74% (35–90%) | |
| Effectiveness against severe rotavirus infection (moderate/low outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | Hospital-based surveillance for cases (−0.5) | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 155 | 926 | 61% (38–75%) | |
| Effectiveness against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| One29 | Matched case control | None | NA | Urban and peri-urban hospitals in Nicaragua (−0.5) | Pentavalent vaccine (−0.5) | 216 | 1250 | 47% (22–64%) | |
| One20 | Matched case control | None | NA | Rural hospital in the Northern Territory of Australia | Monovalent vaccine (−0.5) | 10 | 58 | 57% (<0–83%) | |
| Efficacy against severe rotavirus infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 59 | 358 | 89.1% (77.9–94.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against severe GI infection (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two30,31 | RCT | None | Borderline heterogeneity from meta-analysis (P = 0.07); all studies show benefit | Europe and Latin America | All studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 598 | 808 | 44.2% (32.8–53.7%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against rotavirus hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 30 | 290 | 92.7% (77.2–97.6%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against GI hospitalizations (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Three4,30,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | Two of three studies used monovalent vaccine; one used pentavalent. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | >292 | >477 | 56% (39–73%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
| Efficacy against any rotavirus (moderate outcome-specific quality) | |||||||||
| Two4,31 | RCT | None | Heterogeneity from meta-analysis (−0.5); all studies show benefit | USA, Europe and Latin America | One of two studies used monovalent vaccine. No co-interventions with potential to impact rotavirus outcomes | 203 | 607 | 74.4% (63.2–82.2%) | Random effects meta-analysis |
RCT: randomized controlled trial.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
