June 1, 1929The Journal of Experimental MedicineOpen Access

Intradermal Versus Subcutaneous Immunization of Monkeys Against Poliomyelitis

Q: What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Other. Population: Poliomyelitis. Intervention: Intradermal immunization with living, active poliomyelitis virus vs. Subcutaneous immunization. Primary outcome: Protection against intracerebral inoculations of poliomyelitis virus.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Intradermal immunization with living poliomyelitis virus conferred greater protection against intracerebral inoculation in monkeys than subcutaneous injection.

Authors

FSFred W. StewartNorwalk Hospital CRC. P. RhoadsGrinnell College

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Intradermal route may enhance protection in primate models; leaves open optimal immunization strategies for human poliomyelitis.

PICO

Population

Monkeys immunized with living, active poliomyelitis virus to test protection against intracerebral inoculation.

Intervention / Comparator

Intradermal immunization with living, active poliomyelitis virus vs Subcutaneous immunization (Considerable amounts)

Primary Outcome

Protection against intracerebral inoculations of poliomyelitis virus

Limitations

The degree of protection produced by the immunization methods used is not absolute, since a percentage of the inoculated monkeys respond to intracerebral injections of highly potent virus.

Cite This Study

Stewart et al. (1929) studied Poliomyelitis. Intradermal immunization with living, active poliomyelitis virus vs. Subcutaneous immunization was evaluated on Protection against intracerebral inoculations of poliomyelitis virus. Intradermal immunization with living poliomyelitis virus conferred greater protection against intracerebral inoculation in monkeys than subcutaneous injection.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a92b1bf030f5598b797a25d https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.49.6.959

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark