ArticleVaccines2022
Gender and AB0 Blood Type Differences in a Unicentric Group of University Professors in Southern Italy Who Received the Vaxzevria COVID-19 Vaccine: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Vaccine Side Effects, Attitudes, and Hesitation.
Article in Vaccines, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Consumption of Anxiolytics, Antipsychotics, and Antidepressants in South Italian Region.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Investigation of the Side Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines in Southern Iran: A Cross-Sectional Study.Archives of Razi Institute · 2024Article
- Self-reported side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among health professions students in India.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Sex-disaggregated outcomes of adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination: A Dutch cohort study and review of the literature.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vaccination has been a key protective behavior for COVID-19. This study investigated the clinical status of university professors administered the Vaxzevria COVID-19 vaccine, to monitor for any adverse reaction, and to understand attitude and hesitancy to vaccination. Data were collected through an online survey. The study received approval from the relevant ethics committee "Comitato Etico Campania Sud". Multivariate logistic regressions were used to calculate significant predictors of the outcomes of interest. A gender and AB0 blood type difference in adverse vaccine reactions was found. The multivariate logistic regression model showed that female gender, city residence, blood type A+ and B-, and chronic underlying medical conditions or comorbidities were more strongly implicated in the occurrence of adverse reactions, whereas blood type 0 Rh+ or blood type A Rh- were protective factors of adverse reactions to the Vaxzevria vaccine. Both genders did not show serious adverse reactions to the Vaxzevria vaccine. Based on our results, we are able to support the hypothesis that AB0 blood type and gender difference appear as predictors of Vaxzevria COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity. Furthermore, in the study population, the degree of concern and hesitation to undergo vaccination was minimal.
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.