ArticleNature communications2022
Comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against Covid-19 in people over 50.
Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Pooled it
- Observational methods for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness research: an empirical evaluation and target trial emulation.International journal of epidemiology · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness of live-attenuated and inactivated influenza vaccines against influenza in 2-17-y-old children, United States, 2022-2025.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Article
- Identifying direct risk factors in UK Biobank via simultaneous Bayesian-frequentist model-averaged hypothesis testing using Doublethink.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Loneliness and Risk of Incident Hearing Loss: The UK Biobank Study.Health data science · 2025Article
- Mechanistic models of humoral kinetics following COVID-19 vaccination.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- Personalized prediction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced immunity after boost: a longitudinal analysis using joint modeling.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Methodology of comparative studies on the relative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2024Article
- Relationship between HLA genetic variations, COVID-19 vaccine antibody response, and risk of breakthrough outcomes.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Modeling and predicting individual variation in COVID-19 vaccine-elicited antibody response in the general population.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Article
- Immune Responses After Vaccination With Primary 2-Dose ChAdOx1 Plus a Booster of BNT162b2 or Vaccination With Primary 2-Dose BNT162b2 Plus a Booster of BNT162b2 and the Occurrence of Omicron Breakthrough Infection.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- The effects of obesity and metabolic abnormalities on severe COVID-19-related outcomes after vaccination: A population-based study.Cell metabolism · 2023Article
- Antibody binding and neutralization of live SARS-CoV-2 variants including BA.4/5 following booster vaccination of patients with B-cell malignancies.Cancer research communications · 2022Article
- Article
- Fully understanding the efficacy profile of the COVID-19 vaccination and its associated factors in multiple real-world settings.Frontiers in immunology · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Although pivotal trials with varying populations and study methods suggest higher efficacy for mRNA than adenoviral Covid-19 vaccines, not many studies have directly compared vaccine effectiveness in the population. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of BNT162b2 versus ChAdOx1 against Covid-19. We analyse 235,181 UK Biobank participants aged 50 years or older and vaccinated with one or two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. People are followed from the vaccination date until 18/10/2021. Inverse probability weighting is used to minimise confounding and the Cox models to derive hazard ratio. We find that, compared with one dose of ChAdOx1, vaccination with BNT162b2 is associated with a 28% (95% CI, 12-42) decreased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Also, two doses of BNT162b2 vs ChAdOx1 confers 30% (95% CI, 25-35) and 29% (95% CI, 10-45) lower risks of both infection and hospitalisation during the study period when the Delta variant is dominant. Furthermore, the comparative protection against the infection persists for at least six months among the fully vaccinated, suggesting no differential waning between the two vaccines. These findings can inform evidence-based Covid-19 vaccination campaigns and booster strategies.
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.