Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36000160›Full record

ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2022

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis.

Ahmad A Toubasi, Thuraya N Al-Sayegh, Yazan Y Obaid, Sarah M Al-Harasis, Saif Aldeen S AlRyalat

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Risk assessment of infection of COVID-19 contacts based on scenario simulation.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Ahmad A ToubasiFaculty of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4688-9728
Thuraya N Al-SayeghFaculty of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Yazan Y ObaidFaculty of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Sarah M Al-HarasisFaculty of Medicine, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Saif Aldeen S AlRyalatDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5588-9458

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSeveral vaccines showed a good safety profile and significant efficacy against COVID-19. Moreover, in the absence of direct head to head comparison between COVID-19 vaccines, a network meta-analysis that indirectly compares between them is needed.

methodsDatabases PubMed, CENTRAL, medRxiv, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Studies were included if they were placebo-controlled clinical trials and reported the safety profile and/or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials and the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for nonrandomized trials.

resultsForty-nine clinical trials that included 421,173 participants and assessed 28 vaccines were included in this network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis showed that Pfizer is the most effective in preventing COVID-19 infection whereas the Sputnik Vaccine was the most effective in preventing severe COVID-19 infection. In terms of the local and systemic side, the Sinopharm and V-01 vaccines were the safest.

conclusionWe found that almost all of the vaccines included in this study crossed the threshold of 50% efficacy. However, some of them did not reach the previously mentioned threshold against the B.1.351 variant while the remainder have not yet investigated vaccine efficacy against this variant. Since each vaccine has its own strong and weak points, we strongly advocate continued vaccination efforts in individualized manner that recommend the best vaccine for each group in the community which is abundantly required to save lives and to avert the emergence of future variants.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansSARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesVaccinesCOVID-19humanmeta-analysispandemicvaccine

Identifiers

PMID36000160
PMCPMC9538745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.