Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34225791›Full record

SynthesisInfectious diseases of poverty2021

Safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Musha Chen, Yue Yuan, Yiguo Zhou, Zhaomin Deng, Jin Zhao, Fengling Feng, Huachun Zou, Caijun Sun

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Infectious diseases of poverty, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Humoral and cellular response of COVID-19 vaccine among solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Review
  13. The immunogenicity and safety of adenoviral-based vaccines.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Musha Chen *School of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Yue Yuan *School of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Yiguo Zhou *School of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Zhaomin DengSchool of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Jin ZhaoSchool of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Fengling FengSchool of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China.
Huachun ZouSchool of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China. zouhuachun@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Caijun SunSchool of Public Health (Shenzhen), Sun Yat-Sen University, Shenzhen, China. suncaijun@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2000-7053

Funding

China Postdoctoral Science Foundation 2020T130150ZXInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China 82022064National Key Scientific Instrument and Equipment Development Projects of China 2020YFC0840900National Natural Science Foundation of China 82041043National Outstanding Youth Science Fund Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China 81703278Science and Technology Planning Project of Shenzhen Municipality JSGG20200225152008136
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious modalities of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), based on different platforms and immunization procedures, have been successively approved for marketing worldwide. A comprehensive review for clinical trials assessing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is urgently needed to make an accurate judgment for mass vaccination. MAIN TEXT: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the safety of COVID-19 vaccine candidates in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of Science, and MedRxiv. Included articles were limited to RCTs on COVID-19 vaccines. A total of 73,633 subjects from 14 articles were included to compare the risks of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) after vaccinating different COVID-19 vaccines. Pooled risk ratios (RR) of total AEFI for inactivated vaccine, viral-vectored vaccine, and mRNA vaccine were 1.34 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.61, P < 0.001], 1.65 (95% CI 1.31-2.07, P < 0.001), and 2.01 (95% CI 1.78-2.26, P < 0.001), respectively. No significant differences on local and systemic AEFI were found between the first dose and second dose. In addition, people aged ≤ 55 years were at significantly higher risk of AEFI than people aged ≥ 56 years, with a pooled RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.15-1.35, P < 0.001).

conclusionsThe safety and tolerance of current COVID-19 vaccine candidates are acceptable for mass vaccination, with inactivated COVID-19 vaccines candidates having the lowest reported AEFI. Long-term surveillance of vaccine safety is required, especially among elderly people with underlying medical conditions.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCOVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicYoung AdultCOVID-19 VaccinesAdverse events following immunizationCOVID-19 vaccineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialSafety

Identifiers

PMID34225791
PMCPMC8256217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.