Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36259543›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2022

Effectiveness of mRNA Booster Vaccination Against Mild, Moderate, and Severe COVID-19 Caused by the Omicron Variant in a Large, Population-Based, Norwegian Cohort.

Ida Laake, Siri N Skodvin, Kristine Blix, Ida Henriette Caspersen, Håkon K Gjessing, Lene K Juvet, Per Magnus, Siri Mjaaland, Anna H Robertson, Jostein Starrfelt and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

12 authors.

Ida LaakeDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Siri N SkodvinCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Kristine BlixDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Ida Henriette CaspersenCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Håkon K GjessingCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Lene K JuvetDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Per MagnusCentre for Fertility and Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Siri MjaalandDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Anna H RobertsonDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Jostein StarrfeltDepartment of Infection Control and Preparedness, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Lill TrogstadDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Berit FeiringDepartment of Method Development and Analytics, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding how booster vaccination can prevent moderate and severe illness without hospitalization is crucial to evaluate the full advantage of mRNA boosters.

methodsWe followed 85 801 participants (aged 31-81 years) in 2 large population-based cohorts during the Omicron BA.1/2 wave. Information on home testing, PCR testing, and symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was extracted from biweekly questionnaires covering the period 12 January 2022 to 7 April 2022. Vaccination status and data on previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were obtained from national registries. Cox regression was used to estimate the effectiveness of booster vaccination compared to receipt of 2-dose primary series >130 days previously.

resultsThe effectiveness of booster vaccination increased with increasing severity of COVID-19 and decreased with time since booster vaccination. The effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was reduced from 80.9% shortly after booster vaccination to 63.4% in the period >90 days after vaccination. There was hardly any effect against mild COVID-19. The effectiveness tended to be lower among subjects aged ≥60 years than those aged <50 years.

conclusionsThis is the first population-based study to evaluate booster effectiveness against self-reported mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Our findings contribute valuable information on duration of protection and thus timing of additional booster vaccinations.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansRNA, MessengerSARS-CoV-2VaccinationRNA, Messengerbooster vaccinationCOVID-19disease severityMoBamRNA vaccineSARS-CoV-2vaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID36259543
PMCPMC9620770

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.