ArticleVaccines2022
Balancing Benefits and Harms of COVID-19 Vaccines: Lessons from the Ongoing Mass Vaccination Campaign in Lombardy, Italy.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimum Data Set and Metadata for Active Vaccine Safety Surveillance: Systematic Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Pooled it
- Increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis and reduced likelihood of severe clinical outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a cohort study in Lombardy, Italy.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Knocking on heaven's door: The gap between health institutions and academies in generating knowledge utilizing real-world data.Frontiers in public health · 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
21 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Limited evidence exists on the balance between the benefits and harms of the COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to compare the benefits and safety of mRNA-based (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) and adenovirus-vectored (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in subpopulations defined by age and sex. Methods. All citizens who are newly vaccinated from 27 December 2020 to 3 May 2021 are matched to unvaccinated controls according to age, sex, and vaccination date. Study outcomes include the events that are expected to be avoided by vaccination (i.e., hospitalization and death from COVID-19) and those that might be increased after vaccine inoculation (i.e., venous thromboembolism). The incidence rate ratios (IRR) of vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens are separately estimated within strata of sex, age category and vaccine type. When suitable, number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH) are calculated to evaluate the balance between the benefits and harm of vaccines within each sex and age category. Results. In total, 2,351,883 citizens are included because they received at least one dose of vaccine (755,557 Oxford-AstraZeneca and 1,596,326 Pfizer/Moderna). A reduced incidence of COVID-19-related outcomes is observed with a lowered incidence rate ranging from 55% to 89% and NNT values ranging from 296 to 3977. Evidence of an augmented incidence of harm-related outcomes is observed only for women aged <50 years within 28 days after Oxford-AstraZeneca (being the corresponding adjusted IRR of 2.4, 95% CI 1.1−5.6, and NNH value of 23,207, 95% CI 10,274−89,707). Conclusions. A favourable balance between benefits and harms is observed in the current study, even among younger women who received Oxford-AstraZeneca.
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.