ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
Safety monitoring in inactivated COVID-19 vaccines by clinical pharmacists from a single center in China.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination in Korea using data from active surveillance: a text mining approach.Epidemiology and health · 2025Article
- SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Uptake among Patients with Chronic Liver Disease: A Cross-Sectional Analysis in Hebei Province, China.Vaccines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given that vaccine-induced adverse effects were mostly based on previous laboratory research and clinical trials, real-world data on the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination were lacking. This study reported the adverse events (AEs) among inactivated COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Data were collected from a total of 2,808 hospital employees and their family members in Wuhan, China, with all of them receiving the first dose of inactivated COVID-19 vaccines from two pharmaceutical companies. The first dose was given between 29th April and 13th May 2021. A total of 2,732 vaccinees received the second dose between 27th May and 8th July 2021. The whole process of receiving the vaccine was monitored by clinical pharmacists, and the information on AEs including demographics, occurrence, types, and severity was recorded through an online questionnaire and telephone follow-up. Most of the common AEs were mild and tolerable, and the overall incidence of AEs was lower than the data from the safety profile in clinical trials. Moreover, the incidence of AEs in the first dose (21.30%, 598) was higher than that in the second dose (16.07%, 439). Furthermore, the first injection had more severe AEs (4, 0.14%) than the second injection (2, 0.07%). The AEs involved the skin, muscle, respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, and other tissues and systems. The most common AE was pain at the injection site (first dose: 10.19%, second dose: 12.55%). All the vaccinees with AEs for both doses recovered fully in the end. It was noted that some AEs might cause blood coagulation disorder and bleeding risk. Therefore, ongoing monitoring of AEs after COVID-19 vaccination is essential in evaluating the benefits and risks of each vaccine.
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.