Comment on the paper Negative anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody response following Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a patient on ocrelizumab: the likely explanation for this phenomenon based on our observations.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. From Immunogen to COVID-19 vaccines: Prospects for the post-pandemic era.Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie · 2023
   Review
2. Characterization of humoral response to COVID mRNA vaccines in multiple sclerosis patients on disease modifying therapies.Vaccine · 2021
   Article
3. Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody responses following Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in a patient with multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab: a case report.The Journal of international medical research · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Negative anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody response following Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in a patient on ocrelizumab.2021

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as