Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35015761›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

A systematic review of methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: Advising resource-constrained settings.

Yot Teerawattananon, Thunyarat Anothaisintawee, Chatkamol Pheerapanyawaranun, Siobhan Botwright, Katika Akksilp, Natchalaikorn Sirichumroonwit, Nuttakarn Budtarad, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Clinical and economic benefits of seasonal COVID-19 vaccination in Germany: results from the ROUTINE-COV19 Study, September 2022 to March 2024.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in a low incidence and low mortality setting: the case of Thailand at start of the pandemic.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Yot TeerawattananonHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Thunyarat AnothaisintaweeDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chatkamol PheerapanyawaranunHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Siobhan BotwrightHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-8204-2065
Katika AkksilpHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-7270-8820
Natchalaikorn SirichumroonwitHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Nuttakarn BudtaradHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Wanrudee IsaranuwatchaiHealth Intervention and Technology Assessment Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world effectiveness studies are important for monitoring performance of COVID-19 vaccination programmes and informing COVID-19 prevention and control policies. We aimed to synthesise methodological approaches used in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies, in order to evaluate which approaches are most appropriate to implement in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For this rapid systematic review, we searched PubMed and Scopus for articles published from inception to July 7, 2021, without language restrictions. We included any type of peer-reviewed observational study measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, for any population. We excluded randomised control trials and modelling studies. All data used in the analysis were extracted from included papers. We used a standardised data extraction form, modified from STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Study quality was assessed using the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021264658. Our search identified 3,327 studies, of which 42 were eligible for analysis. Most studies (97.5%) were conducted in high-income countries and the majority assessed mRNA vaccines (78% mRNA only, 17% mRNA and viral vector, 2.5% viral vector, 2.5% inactivated vaccine). Thirty-five of the studies (83%) used a cohort study design. Across studies, short follow-up time and limited assessment and mitigation of potential confounders, including previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and healthcare seeking behaviour, were major limitations. This review summarises methodological approaches for evaluating real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and highlights the lack of such studies in LMICs, as well as the importance of context-specific vaccine effectiveness data. Further research in LMICs will refine guidance for conducting real-world COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies in resource-constrained settings.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesVaccinationDatabases, FactualHumansObservational Studies as TopicSARS-CoV-2Treatment OutcomeVaccine EfficacyCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID35015761
PMCPMC8752025

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.