ArticleVaccines2021
A Quantitative Benefit-Risk Analysis of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine among People under 60 in Italy.
Article in Vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment of Vaccination Against COVID-19: A Systematic Review.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Pooled it
- Quantitative benefit-risk analysis for prophylactic vaccines in the context of FDAs benefit-risk framework.NPJ vaccines · 2026Review
- Article
- Vaccine Vigilance System: Considerations on the Effectiveness of Vigilance Data Use in COVID-19 Vaccination.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Cerebrovascular Complications of COVID-19 and COVID-19 Vaccination.Circulation research · 2022Review
- COVID-19, Vaccines, and Thrombotic Events: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Atypical Sites of Lymphadenopathy after Anti-COVID-19 Vaccine: Ultrasound Features.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is a vaccine against the COVID-19 infection that was granted a conditional marketing authorization by the European Commission in January 2021. However, following a report from the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of European Medicines Agency, which reported an association with thrombo-embolic events (TEE), in particular disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), many European countries either limited it to individuals older than 55-60 years or suspended its use. We used publicly available data to carry out a quantitative benefit-risk analysis of the vaccine among people under 60 in Italy. Specifically, we used data from PRAC, Eudravigilance and ECDC to estimate the excess number of deaths for TEE, DIC and CVST expected in vaccine users, stratified by age groups. We then used data from the National Institute of Health to calculate age-specific COVID-19 mortality rates in Italy. Preventable deaths were calculated assuming a 72% vaccine efficacy over an eight-month period. Finally, the benefit-risk ratio of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination was calculated as the ratio of preventable COVID-19 deaths to vaccine-related deaths, using Monte-Carlo simulations. We found that among subjects aged 20-29 years the benefit-risk (B-R) ratio was not clearly favorable (0.70; 95% Uncertainty Interval (UI): 0.27-2.11). However, in the other age groups the benefits of vaccination largely exceeded the risks (for age 30-49, B-R ratio: 22.9: 95%UI: 10.1-186.4). For age 50-59, B-R ratio: 1577.1: 95%UI: 1176.9-2121.5). Although many countries have limited the use of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the benefits of using this vaccine clearly outweigh the risks in people older than 30 years. Study limitations included risk of underreporting and that we did not provide age-specific estimates. The use of this vaccine should be a strategic and fundamental part of the immunization campaign considering its safety and efficacy in preventing COVID-19 and its complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.