Recombinant zoster vaccine vs placebo: Participants with adverse events ‐ any local symptom Clinical criteria
Recombinant zoster vaccine probably leads to higher participants with adverse events ‐ any local symptomClinical criteria compared with placebo (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Recombinant zoster vaccine vs placebo Participants with adverse events ‐ any local symptomClinical criteria · healthy older adults aged ≥ 60 years Recombinant zoster vaccine probably leads to higher participants with adverse events ‐ any local symptomClinical criteria compared with placebo (moderate certainty). Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 6.89 [6.37, 7.45] | 2 studies · 9769 participants | Moderate |
Recombinant zoster vaccine vs placebo Participants with adverse events ‐ any local symptom Clinical criteria · healthy older adults aged ≥ 60 years Recombinant zoster vaccine probably leads to higher participants with adverse events ‐ any local symptom Clinical criteria compared with placebo (moderate certainty). Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD008858.PUB4, superseded | RR 6.89 [6.37, 7.45] | 2 studies · 9769 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.