ArticleClinical and experimental vaccine research2022
Reactogenicity to COVID-19 vaccination in the United States of America.
Article in Clinical and experimental vaccine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the reported adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccinated Arab populations: a multi-national survey study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessment of adverse events among healthcare workers following the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine in Tigray, Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Protective Anti-HBs Antibodies and Response to a Booster Dose in Medical Students Vaccinated at Childhood.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Sex-disaggregated outcomes of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination: A Dutch cohort study and review of the literature.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Current advancements and future prospects of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics: a narrative review.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the United States, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen's coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine presently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The purpose of this study is to analyze passive surveillance data on COVID-19 vaccine adverse reaction in the United States. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed passive surveillance data on COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions which were retrieved from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database. Retrieved records on demographic information as well as the top 10 common vaccine adverse events were extracted and assessed from 200 of the most recently reported cases for the study analysis.
resultsLocal and systemic adverse reactions were reported in the study. A significant difference (p<0.05) was recorded for the top 10 systemic reactions by age category (0.041) and by gender (0.002). Analysis of the top five systemic reactions, stratified by vaccine type yielded a significant difference (p<0.05) for chills (p=0.044), and when stratified by age group and type of vaccination received, it yielded a significant difference (p<0.05) for fatigue (p=0.023). Overall, Pfizer had 182 persons (91.0%) reporting adverse events, Moderna with 13 (6.5%), and Janssen with 5 (2.5%).
conclusionMild side effects were reported following vaccination with the EUA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States. Thus, continuous monitoring and reporting of all adverse events are recommended to ensure the safety of vaccination.
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.