Първоначално изпратено от neon7
Разгледай мнение
В края на статията има още едно изследване и то е на Cochrane Library.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Library
Тази световна доброволческа организация на учени в медицината прави метаизследвания то ест изследване на изследванията в областа на медицината и срутва много общи или частни митове в нея. Всяка нейна публикация се основава на изследване на десетки или стотици други публикации по конкретен медицински въпрос.
Можеш например да видиш каква е ефективността на дадено лекарство или начин на лечение.
Препоръчвам ви да я разгледате.
По темата тяхно всестранно изследване от 2010 година показва, че грипната ваксина не влияе на хоспитализирането от грип и че няма доказателства, че ваксината предотвратява разпространението на вируса и усложненията от него.
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr...1269.pub4/full
Позволявам си по-дълъг цитат от статията за да добиете представа за начина и нивото на работата им.
Main results
We included 50 reports. Forty (59 sub‐studies) were clinical trials of over 70,000 people. Eight were comparative non‐RCTs and assessed serious harms. Two were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis. In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain‐Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited.
Authors' conclusions
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.
WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.
We included 50 reports. Forty (59 sub‐studies) were clinical trials of over 70,000 people. Eight were comparative non‐RCTs and assessed serious harms. Two were reports of harms which could not be introduced in the data analysis. In the relatively uncommon circumstance of vaccine matching the viral circulating strain and high circulation, 4% of unvaccinated people versus 1% of vaccinated people developed influenza symptoms (risk difference (RD) 3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2% to 5%). The corresponding figures for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%). These differences were not likely to be due to chance. Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work and had no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local harms and an estimated 1.6 additional cases of Guillain‐Barré Syndrome per million vaccinations. The harms evidence base is limited.
Authors' conclusions
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.
WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.
Коментар