ReviewJournal of medical virology2022
Vaccine development and technology for SARS-CoV-2: Current insight.
Review in Journal of medical virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sequential or Combination Treatments as Rescue Therapies in Immunocompromised Patients with Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in the Omicron Era: A Case Series.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Vaccine development and technology for SARS-CoV-2: Current insight.Journal of medical virology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with a severe respiratory disease in China, that rapidly spread across continents. Since the beginning of the pandemic, available data suggested the asymptomatic transmission and patients were treated with specific drugs with efficacy and safety data not always satisfactory. The aim of this review is to describe the vaccines developed by three companies, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca, in terms of both technological and pharmaceutical formulation, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity. A critical analysis of Phases 1, 2, and 3 clinical trial results available was conducted, comparing the three vaccine candidates, underlining their similarities and differences. All candidates showed consistent efficacy and tolerability; although some differences can be noted, such as their technological formulation, temperature storage, which will be related to logistics and costs. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate long-term effects and to assess the vaccine safety and efficacy in the general population.
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.