ArticleVaccines2022
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses after Various COVID-19 Vaccinations in Healthcare Workers.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in virus and immune dynamics for SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron infections by age and vaccination histories.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Classification of Time since BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination Based on Array-Measured Antibody Activity.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- VSV-Based Vaccines Reduce Virus Shedding and Viral Load in Hamsters Infected with SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern.Vaccines · 2022Article
- The Humoral Immune Response of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 Vaccine in Maintenance Dialysis Patients without Prior COVID-19 Infection.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Incidence of COVID-19 Vaccination-Related Uveitis and Effects of Booster Dose in a Tertiary Uveitis Referral Center.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination began for healthcare workers in South Korea at the end of February 2021. This study investigated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody responses after various COVID-19 vaccinations in healthcare workers. Blood specimens of 497 vaccinated healthcare workers were collected. Inoculated vaccines were ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), JNJ-78436735 (Janssen), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Each specimen was tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 using Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay (Roche Diagnostics), SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant assay (Abbott), and R-FIND SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody kit (SG medical Inc.). A questionnaire was used to investigate adverse events related to vaccination. We found that 99.5% of the subjects showed a 96-100% positive rate in all three antibody assays, regardless of the vaccine type. The antibody-positive rate of completed vaccination groups reached 96-100%, and antibody quantities significantly increased 2 weeks after vaccination. The antibody values measured approximately 3 months after BNT162b2 inoculation significantly correlated with adverse events.
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.