Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34769618›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine in the Vaccination Campaign among the Health Workers of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS.

Domenico Pascucci, Mario Cesare Nurchis, Martina Sapienza, Francesco Castrini, Flavia Beccia, Floriana D'Ambrosio, Adriano Grossi, Carolina Castagna, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Maurizio Zega and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Domenico PascucciUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5804-2284
Mario Cesare NurchisUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-9345-4292
Martina SapienzaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2576-4299
Francesco CastriniUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Flavia BecciaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9278-7995
Floriana D'AmbrosioUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0347-088X
Adriano GrossiUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4418-3331
Carolina CastagnaUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Angelo Maria PezzulloUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8252-4654
Maurizio ZegaFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Domenico StaitiUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Francesco Maria De SimoneFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Nadia MoresUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Andrea CambieriFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe VetrugnoUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Gianfranco DamianiUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3028-6188
Patrizia LaurentiUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy.
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health workers, especially those in patient-facing roles, had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, having serious outcomes, and risking spreading the virus to patients and staff. Vaccination campaign planning suggests allocating initial supplies of BNT162b2 vaccine to health workers given the importance of early protection to safeguard the continuity of care to patients. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness and safety of BNT162b2 vaccine among the health workers of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS (FPG). The retrospective cohort study was conducted among health staff working at the FPG. Vaccination data were collected from hospital records. The primary end points were vaccine effectiveness and safety. A total of 6649 health workers were included, of whom 5162 received injections. There were 14 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose among vaccinated health workers and 45 cases among unvaccinated ones. BNT162b2 was 91.5% effective against COVID-19 (95% credible interval, 84.7% to 95.3%). The safety profile of BNT162b2 vaccine consisted of short-term, non-serious events. The promotion and boost of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign represents a key public health measure useful to curb the spread of the pandemic especially in vulnerable contexts, such as hospitals, where health workers carry out a paramount role for the entire community, and requires further protection with a possible booster dose in view of autumn-winter 2021.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesBNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansImmunization ProgramsRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19effectivenesshealth workerssafetyvaccination campaignvaccine

Identifiers

PMID34769618
PMCPMC8582885
OpenAlexW3209236696

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.