Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Influenza vaccine for all?

Joanne M. Langley and John Feightner
CMAJ April 26, 2005 172 (9) 1162-1163; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1050066
Joanne M. Langley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John Feightner
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Metrics
  • Responses
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2005 CMA Media Inc. or its licensors

As systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become established as methods for evidence-based decision-making, reviews on similar questions have been published, sometimes with discordant results. Recommended approaches to reconciling these differences include determining if the results truly differ or if the variation arises from the interpretation of the results.1 Ross Upshur notes that different conclusions on vaccination of the general public were reached by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)2,3 and the Cochrane Collaboration.4 In this case, the reviews covered different populations (healthy adults and children in the CTFPHC review, healthy adults only in the Cochrane review) and considered different interventions (vaccines and neuraminidase inhibitors in the CTFPHC review, vaccines only in the Cochrane review). There were also differences in methods: CTFPHC reviews are systematic qualitative reviews,5,6 whereas the Cochrane reviews are generally quantitative reviews.4,7 As noted in the Methods section and Fig. 1 of our review,2 we reviewed the Cochrane database to find primary trials that might not have been identified in our literature search. The trials that were judged acceptable were not identical in the 2 reviews.

Perhaps the most important difference between the 2 reviews is in the interpretation of cumulative evidence for influenza vaccination in healthy people. The Cochrane reviewers concluded that the efficacy of inactivated influenza vaccines (the type of vaccine that is available in Canada) was 70% (95% confidence interval 56% to 80%) in healthy adults, but thought that this was insufficient evidence to support general vaccination.4 The CTFPHC concluded that vaccination was a moderately effective intervention to reduce influenza in adults and children, without evidence of harm, and recommended it.3 The clinical significance of a 70% reduction in influenza virus infection will likely be of variable importance to patients and their families, clinicians and other health care providers, and payers. The ultimate decision to offer influenza vaccination rests with those who must balance the broader issues of universal programs, such as the practicability of vaccinating large populations in a short period of time, public acceptance, vaccine procurement and the value of this intervention relative to other health prevention or treatment interventions.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 1997;156(10):1411-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Langley JM, Faughnan ME. Prevention of influenza in the general population. CMAJ 2004;171(10):1213-22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Langley JM, Faughnan ME; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Prevention of influenza in the general population: recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 2004;171(10):1169-70.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Deeks JJ, Jefferson TO. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 3, 2004. Oxford: Update Software.
  5. 5.↵
    Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. New grades for recommendations from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 2003;169(3):207-8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3 Suppl):21-35.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Demicheli V, Rivetti D, Deeks JJ, Jefferson TO. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. In: The Cochrane Library; Issue 4, 2001. Oxford: Update Software.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 172 (9)
CMAJ
Vol. 172, Issue 9
26 Apr 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Influenza vaccine for all?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Influenza vaccine for all?
Joanne M. Langley, John Feightner
CMAJ Apr 2005, 172 (9) 1162-1163; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1050066

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Influenza vaccine for all?
Joanne M. Langley, John Feightner
CMAJ Apr 2005, 172 (9) 1162-1163; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1050066
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Eliminating racism in research
  • Transitioning to outpatient arthroplasty during COVID-19: time to pivot
  • Systemic absorption of intranasal corticosteroids may occur and can potentially affect the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Infectious diseases

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire