ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2022
Self-Reported Reactogenicity After Different COVID-19 Vaccination Regimens—an Analysis of Registry-Based Data.
Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study.BMC medicine · 2023Observational
- Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study.BMC medicine · 2023Observational
- 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn Rhineland-Palatinate, most COVID-19 vaccinations are centrally registered by the Rhineland-Palatinate Division of Vaccine Documentation, which includes self-reported vaccination reactions (SRVR) and their level of perceived intensity. We analyzed the occurrence of SRVR reported between 12/2020 and 12/2021 in relation to the different vaccination regimens involving BioNTech/Pfizer (BNT) and Moderna (m1273) mRNA vaccines and AstraZeneca (ChAd) and Johnson & Johnson (Ad26) viral vector vaccines.
methodsUsing sex-specific logistic regression models, we analyzed the occurrence of all local and systemic SRVR, as well as the occurrence of local and systemic SRVR that were self-rated as "severe" by the vaccinated persons, in relation to the vaccine of the first vaccination and the vaccination regimen of the second vaccination (BNT/BNT, ChAd/ChAd, m1273/m1273, ChAd/ BNT, ChAd/m1273). Vaccination with BNT or the BNT/BNT regimen formed the reference category for the estimated odds ratios (OR) with respective 95% confidence intervals.
resultsOf all those vaccinated, 40.7% provided valid information on SRVR after the first vaccination and 33.8% after the second vaccination. As a result, 887 052 individuals were included in the analyses. Their median age was 60 years, and 58% were women. The most common vaccination regimen was BNT/BNT (67.3%). The most common SRVR were pain at the injection site and fatigue. Self-reported reactogenicity after the first vaccination was lowest for BNT. Self-reported systemic reactogenicity was notably higher after vaccination with a vector vaccine. After the second vaccination, self-reported reactogenicity was lowest after a ChAd/ChAd regimen and highest after an m1273 second vaccination.
conclusionWith overall acceptable tolerability, differences in self-reported reactogenicity were evident depending on the particular COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in question.
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.