Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34816252›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in global women's health2021

Sex and Gender in COVID-19 Vaccine Research: Substantial Evidence Gaps Remain.

Amy Vassallo, Sultana Shajahan, Katie Harris, Laura Hallam, Carinna Hockham, Kate Womersley, Mark Woodward, Meru Sheel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in global women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Amy VassalloThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sultana ShajahanThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Katie HarrisThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Laura HallamThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Carinna HockhamThe George Institute for Global Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Kate WomersleyThe George Institute for Global Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mark WoodwardThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Meru SheelNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Research School of Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a global call for sex/gender-disaggregated data to be made available, which has uncovered important findings about COVID-19 testing, incidence, severity, hospitalisations, and deaths. This mini review scopes the evidence base for efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines from both experimental and observational research, and asks whether (1) women and men were equally recruited and represented in vaccine research, (2) the outcomes of studies were presented or analysed by sex and/or gender, and (3) there is evidence of sex and/or gender differences in outcomes. Following a PubMed search, 41 articles were eligible for inclusion, including seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 11 cohort studies, eight cross-sectional surveys, eight routine surveillance studies, and seven case series. Overall, the RCTs contained equal representation of women and men; however, the observational studies contained a higher percentage of women. Of 10 studies with efficacy data, only three (30%) presented sex/gender-disaggregated results. Safety data was included in 35 studies and only 12 (34%) of these presented data by sex/gender. For those that did present disaggregated data, overall, the majority of participants reporting adverse events were women. There is a paucity of reporting and analysis of COVID-19 vaccine data by sex/gender. Research should be designed in a gender-sensitive way to present and, where possible analyse, data by sex/gender to ensure that there is a robust and specific evidence base of efficacy and safety data to assist in building public confidence and promote high vaccine coverage.

Indexed as

COVID-19evidencegendergender equalityimmunisationsafetyvaccine

Identifiers

PMID34816252
PMCPMC8593988

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.