ReviewVaccines2022
Safety of Global SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines, a Meta-Analysis.
Review in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 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
- Cardiovascular Sequelae of the COVID-19 Vaccines.Cureus · 2025Review
- Self-Reported Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination Among Medical Sciences Students After a Symptomatology Training Program: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- The manifestation and causes of public panic in the early stage of COVID-19 in China: a framework based on consciousness-attitude-behavior.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Safety and tolerance of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection in systemic lupus erythematosus: results from the COVAD study.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
- Extracellular Vesicle-Based SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Novel receptor, mutation, vaccine, and establishment of coping mode for SARS-CoV-2: current status and future.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Single-dose rAAV5-based vaccine provides long-term protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.Virology journal · 2022Article
- SARS-CoV-2 vaccine safety and immunogenicity in patients with hematologic malignancies, transplantation, and cellular therapies.Blood reviews · 2022Review
- Severity and Mortality Predictors of COVID-19 Patients with Thrombotic Events-Evidence from theVaccines · 2022Article
- Transient ischemic attack after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines: Spotlight on Neurological Complications.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- A Comprehensive Review on Various Aspects of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Vaccines.International journal of preventive medicine · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines were developed in only a short amount of time and were widely distributed. We conducted this meta-analysis to understand the safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. (2) Methods: We searched the corresponding literature published from 1 January 2020 to 20 October 2021. Information of adverse events (AEs) of each selected work was collected. The quality and bias of studies was evaluated, and meta-analysis was carried out by using Stata 17.0. (3) Results: Totally, 11,451 articles were retrieved, and 53 of them were included for analysis. The incidence rate of AEs was 20.05-94.48%. The incidence rate of vascular events increased after viral vector vaccination, while the incidence rate of vascular events decreased after mRNA vaccination. Viral vector vaccine had a higher AE rate compared to mRNA vaccines and inactivated vaccines. In most circumstances, the incidence of AEs was higher in older people, female and after the second dose. The sensitivity of meta-analysis was acceptable; however, the literature was subject to a certain publication bias. (4) Conclusions: The safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines was acceptable. The incidence of allergic symptoms and cardiovascular and cerebrovascular symptoms was low. Viral vector vaccine had a higher risk of leading to thrombosis events. The understanding of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine AEs should be enhanced, so as to promote the 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.