SynthesisScientific reports2021
Comparing the clinical efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 10 of them syntheses 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
143 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 250 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review identifying effective teaching methods and their combinations for increasing empathy in physicians: pairwise and network meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in children and adult patients with rheumatic diseases: a comprehensive literature review.Rheumatology international · 2024Pooled it
- Immunogenicity, Effectiveness, and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines among Patients with Immune-Mediated Dermatological Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the global prevalence and determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and uptake in people living with HIV.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing the Efficacy and Adverse Events of Available COVID-19 Vaccines Through Randomized Controlled Trials: Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Journal of research in health sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Assessing the robustness of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials: systematic review and meta-analysis, January 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern in real-world: a literature review and meta-analysis.Emerging microbes & infections · 2022Pooled it
- COVID-19 vaccination efficacy in numbers including SARS-CoV-2 variants and age comparison: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety profile of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine in patients with hematological malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- mRNA-based seasonal influenza and SARS-CoV-2 multicomponent vaccine in healthy adults: a phase 1/2 trial.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- Phase II prefusion non-stabilised Covid-19 mRNA vaccine randomised study.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Durability and cross-reactivity of immune responses induced by a plant-based virus-like particle vaccine for COVID-19.Nature communications · 2022Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of a Recombinant Plant-Based Adjuvanted Covid-19 Vaccine.The New England journal of medicine · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Article
- Molecular changes in agroinfiltrated leaves of Nicotiana benthamiana expressing suppressor of silencing P19 and coronavirus-like particles.Plant biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Proteomic signatures of COVID-19 Post-Vaccination/Post-Infection Syndrome (PV/PIS): insights into immune dysregulation and coagulopathy.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Economic Analyses of COVID-19 Interventions: A Narrative Review of Global Evidence.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Development and characterization of a bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting the Delta and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
83 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are available to prevent the ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. We compared the efficacy of new COVID-19 vaccines to prevent symptomatic and severe disease in the adult population and to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 among the elderly. Leading medical databases were searched until August 30, 2021. Published phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated efficacy of the vaccine to prevent symptomatic and sever COVID-19 in adults were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated the literature search results and independently extracted summary data. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) according to PRISMA-NMA 2015 to pool indirect comparisons between different vaccines regarding their relative efficacy. The primary outcomes were the efficacy of the vaccine against symptomatic COVID-19 in adults (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235364). Above 200,000 adult participants from eight phase 3 RCTs were included in NMA, of whom 52% received the intervention (active COVID-19 vaccine). While each of nine vaccines was tested in the unique clinical trial as compared to control, based on indirect comparison, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were ranked with the highest probability of efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 (P-scores 0.952 and 0.843, respectively), followed by Gam-COVID-Vac (P-score 0.782), NVX-CoV23730 (P-score 0.700), CoronaVac (P-score 0.570), BN02 (P-score 0.428), WIV04 (P-score 0.327), and Ad26.COV2.S (P-score 0.198). No statistically significant difference was seen in the ability of the vaccines to prevent symptomatic disease in the elderly population. No vaccine was statistically significantly associated with a decreased risk for severe COVID-19 than other vaccines, although mRNA-1273 and Gam-COVID-Vac have the highest P-scores (0.899 and 0.816, respectively), indicating greater protection against severe disease than other vaccines. In our indirect comparison, the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, which use mRNA technology, were associated with the highest efficacy to prevent symptomatic COVID-19 compared to other vaccines. This finding may have importance when deciding which vaccine to use, together with other important factors as availability of the vaccines, costs, logistics, side effects, and patient acceptability.
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.