Summary of findings for the main comparison. Pneumococcal vaccine versus control vaccine for preventing infant infection.
| Pneumococcal vaccine versus control vaccine for preventing infant infection | ||||||
| Patient or population: Pregnant women undergoing vaccination to prevent infant infection Settings: Studies were located in Bangladesh, Brazil, The Gambia and the USA. Intervention: Pneumococcal vaccine versus control vaccine | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Pneumococcal vaccine versus control vaccine | |||||
| Neonatal death due to pneumococcal infection | 0 | 0 | Not estimable | None of the included studies in this review measured the primary outcome of neonatal death due to pneumococcal infection. | ||
|
Neonatal infection ‐ Pneumonia Follow‐up: 1 year |
Study population | RR 0.58 (0.18 to 1.9) | 149 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| 93 per 1000 | 54 per 1000 (17 to 177) | |||||
|
Neonatal infection ‐ Meningitis Follow‐up: 1 year |
Study population | RR 3.04 (0.13 to 73.44) | 149 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | |||||
|
Neonatal infection ‐ Otitis media Follow‐up: 1 year |
Study population | RR 0.14 (0.01 to 2.75) | 149 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| 40 per 1000 | 6 per 1000 (0 to 110) | |||||
|
Neonatal infection ‐ All infections Follow‐up: 3‐12 months |
Study population | RR 0.66 (0.3 to 1.46) | 241 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| 115 per 1000 | 76 per 1000 (34 to 168) | |||||
|
Pneumococcal colonization ‐ At 2‐3 months of age Follow‐up: 2‐3 months |
Study population | RR 1.13 (0.46 to 2.78) | 146 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| 133 per 1000 | 150 per 1000 (61 to 368) | |||||
|
Pneumococcal colonization ‐ By 6‐7 months of age Follow‐up: 6‐7 months |
Study population | RR 0.67 (0.22 to 2.08) | 148 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | ||
| 271 per 1000 | 181 per 1000 (60 to 563) | |||||
| *The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, few events and small sample size (‐2).