Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
In Reply.— The "bottom line" in the evaluation of a vaccine is how it influences the disease it is intended to prevent; antibody determinations merely provide a rough guide as to what one might expect in this regard. The bottom line for rubella as well as measles and mumps vaccines looks very good. Indeed, we now talk of the "elimination" of measles and rubella. Serological assays for measuring response to immunization can be made more sensitive and, consequentlyly, increase the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine or vice versa. In our article, we tried to provide an "epidemiologic standardization" of the assays by adjusting their specificity and sensitivity using populations of known immune or susceptible persons. To suggest, however, that this could be used in lieu of the performance of the vaccine in preventing disease would be naive. The difference between our serological results and those of Dr Balfour was not
JAMA – American Medical Association
Published: Jun 22, 1984
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.