Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35632578›Full record

ArticleVaccines2022

Evaluation of the Real-World Effectiveness of Vaccines against COVID-19 at a Local Level: Protocol for a Test-Negative Case-Control Study.

Cátia Brazete, Marta Pinto, Lígia Sá, Ana Aguiar, Filipe Alves, Raquel Duarte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Cátia BrazeteEPIUnit-Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.
Marta PintoUnidade de Investigação Clínica da ARS Norte, 4000-477 Porto, Portugal.
Lígia SáUnidade de Saúde Pública do Alto Minho, 4904-459 Viana do Castelo, Portugal.
Ana AguiarEPIUnit-Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7643-8963
Filipe AlvesUnidade de Investigação Clínica da ARS Norte, 4000-477 Porto, Portugal.
Raquel DuarteEPIUnit-Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccines against COVID-19 approved for use in the EU/EEA have been shown to be highly effective against wild-type SARS-CoV-2. However, their effectiveness against new variants may be reduced. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19 in the prevention of symptomatic and severe disease, during pre- and post-omicron phases. Individuals who sought treatment at the emergency department of a Portuguese hospital with COVID-19-like disease and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 are the subjects of the study. Patients who received a positive result are considered cases, while those with negative results are the controls. The test-negative case-control method is one of the study designs recommended by WHO to estimate the effectiveness of vaccines against COVID-19. The main advantage of this design is that it controls for the healthcare seeking bias, commonly present in traditional cohort and case-control designs. This study may have broad implications for understanding the real-world performance of the COVID-19 vaccines at the local level, which may play a key role in promoting adherence to vaccination. Moreover, this study may contribute to inform decisions regarding booster doses and variant-specific vaccine formulations leading to the control of this and future pandemics.

Indexed as

case–control studiesCOVID-19 vaccinesdistrict hospitalseffectiveness

Identifiers

PMID35632578
PMCPMC9147572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.