Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36071540›Full record

ArticleClinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America2023

Pregnancy Status at the Time of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination and Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

Maria C Magnus, Siri E Håberg, Ellen Ø Carlsen, Jeffrey C Kwong, Sarah A Buchan, Deshayne B Fell

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria C MagnusCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Siri E HåbergCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Ellen Ø CarlsenCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Jeffrey C KwongPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Sarah A BuchanPublic Health Ontario, Toronto, Canada.
Deshayne B FellSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Norwegian Institute of Public Health · NOChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario · CAPublic Health Ontario · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPregnant women are recommended to receive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines; however, relative effectiveness of vaccination by pregnancy status is unclear.

methodsWe compared the relative effectiveness of messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines according to whether women received both doses while pregnant (n = 7412), 1 dose while pregnant (n = 3538), both doses while postpartum (n = 1856), or both doses while neither pregnant nor postpartum (n = 6687). We estimated risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection starting 14 days after the second dose using Cox regression, reporting hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Second, we examined relative effectiveness of a third (booster) dose while pregnant compared to outside pregnancy. The major circulating variant during the study period was the Delta variant.

resultsFifty-four percent of women received 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, 16% received 2 doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, while 30% received 1 dose of both vaccines. Compared to women who received both doses while neither pregnant nor postpartum, the adjusted HR for a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test was similar if the woman received both doses while pregnant (1.04 [95% CI, .94-1.17]), 1 dose while pregnant and 1 dose before or after pregnancy (1.03 [95% CI, .93-1.14]), or both doses while postpartum (0.99 [95% CI, .92-1.07]). The findings were similar for BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna Spikevax), and during Delta- and Omicron-dominant periods. We observed no differences in the relative effectiveness of the booster dose according to pregnancy status.

conclusionsWe observed similar effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection among women regardless of pregnancy status at the time of vaccination.

Indexed as

COVID-19Pregnancy Complications, Infectious2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansIncidencePregnancyRNA, MessengerSARS-CoV-2Vaccination2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273BNT162 VaccineCOVID-19 VaccinesRNA, MessengerCOVID-19postpartumpregnancyvaccination

Identifiers

PMID36071540
PMCPMC9494391
OpenAlexW4294991686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.