ReviewVaccines2022
Efficacy, Immunogenicity, and Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines in Randomized Control Trials in the Pre-Delta Era: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the Efficacy and Adverse Events of Available COVID-19 Vaccines Through Randomized Controlled Trials: Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.Journal of research in health sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Neutralizing antibody response to Omicron subvariants BA.1 and BA.5 in children and adolescents following the two-dose CoronaVac protocol (Immunita-002, Brazil): a 12-month longitudinal study.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Article
- Reinfection rates, change in antibody titers and adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination among patients previously infected with COVID-19 in Metro Manila, Philippines: a secondary analysis of a completed cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Review
- Quantitative Benefit-Risk Assessment of COVID-19 Vaccines Using the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.Vaccines · 2022Article
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The most effective method of limiting the coronavirus disease pandemic of 2019 (COVID-19) is vaccination. For the determination of the comparative efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and their platforms during the pre-Delta era, a systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted. The MEDLINE, Embase, and MedRxiv databases were searched, and the gray literature was manually searched up to 8 July 2021. The review includes the phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines. The network meta-analysis used a Bayesian model and used the surface under the cumulative ranking to rank the comparisons between the vaccines. All included studies were quality appraised according to their design, and the heterogeneity of the analyses was assessed using I2. In terms of vaccine efficacy, the mRNA-1273 vaccine ranked the highest, and the CoronaVac vaccine ranked the lowest. The mRNA-1273 ranked the highest for neutralizing antibody responses to live SARS-CoV-2. The WIV04 vaccine was associated with the lowest incidence of both local and systemic adverse reactions. All studies except one had a low to moderate risk of bias. The mRNA platform vaccines showed higher efficacy and more adverse reactions than the other vaccines.
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.