Vaccines for the prevention of diarrhea due to cholera, shigella, ETEC and rotavirus

BMC Public Health

Table 2 Quality assessment of vaccine trials for immunization against – Shigella

	Quality Assessment					Summary of Findings
				Directness		No of events
No of Studies	Design	Limitations	Consistency	Generalizability to population of interest	Generalizability to intervention of interest	Intervention	Control	Risk Ratio
Efficacy against morbidity, Shigella Infection (S.Flexneri): Low-outcome-specific quality
03 [35, 38, 40]	RCT	Random effect model. Insignificant results	Two studies show consistent benefit	Two studies were from developed countries	Two used oral vaccine while one used intramuscular	56	107	0.72 (0.37, 1.39)^b
02 [35, 38]	RCT	Random effect model. Insignificant results	One study shows significant benefit	One study from developed country	Oral Vaccines	49	99	0.67 [0.28, 1.59]^b
01 [40]	RCT	Only one study		Study was conducted in Israel	Parenteral Vaccine	07	08	0.92 [0.33, 2.53]
Efficacy against morbidity, Shigella Infection (S.Sonnei): Low-outcome-specific quality
03 [35, 38, 40]	RCT	Random effect model. Insignificant results	Two studies show consistent benefit	Two studies were from developed countries	Two used oral vaccine while one used intramuscular	39	94	0.47 (0.12, 1.85)^b
02 [35, 38]	RCT	Random effect model. Insignificant results	One study shows significant benefit	One study from developed country	Oral Vaccines	10	56	0.39 [0.04, 4.33]^b
01 [40]	RCT	Only one study		Study was conducted in Israel	Parenteral Vaccines	29	38	0.73 [0.45, 1.17]
One or more Adverse events (S.Flexneri): Low outcome-specific quality
02 [36, 41]	RCT	None	inconsistent results	Both from developing countries		45	08	1.58(0.81, 3.07)^a

ISSN: 1471-2458