Skip to main content
. 2013 Jan 31;2013(1):CD000422. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000422.pub3

Ortqvist 1998.

Methods Double‐blind RCT
Participants Non‐immunocompromised adults aged 50 to 85 years who had been inpatients for CAP in Sweden. Potential participants excluded if assumed poor compliance, previous receipt of PPV, allergy to PPV or immunocompromised
Interventions 23‐valent PPV (n = 339) administered intramuscularly (subcutaneous for patients on anticoagulant therapy), or saline placebo (352)
Outcomes A1. IPD 
 A2. Pneumonia (all causes) 
 A3. Mortality (all causes) 
 A4. IPD (vaccine‐type) 
 A5. Definitive pneumococcal pneumonia 
 A6. Definitive pneumococcal pneumonia (vaccine‐type) 
 A7. Presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia 
 A8. Presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia (vaccine‐type) 
 A9. Mortality due to pneumonia
Notes Average follow‐up 2.5 years 
 Case ascertainment: participant to contact doctor if temperature above 38 C or cause to suspect pneumonia recurrence. 1 participant withdrawn (n = 2, as randomised twice)
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Specific method not described, however, text states: "randomisation was done by the vaccine manufacturer and the code was not disclosed until follow‐up had ended"
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Vaccine and placebo were marked with random numbers
Confounding 
 All outcomes Unclear risk NA
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Staff and participants blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Outcome assessors did not know participant study group allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk No evidence of incomplete outcome data
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No evidence of selective outcome reporting