ArticleVaccines2022
Adverse Reactions after the Third Dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine among Medical School Residents in a Regional Reference University Hospital in Italy.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse reactions following first three doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: A prospective cohort study on relationships with individual characteristics and previous experience of adverse reactions.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic: Draw on experience.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Unilateral Anterior Scleritis Following the Booster Shot of Inactivated COVID-19 (Sinopharm) Vaccine in a 52-Year-Old Woman: A Case Report.Case reports in rheumatology · 2024Article
- Tuberculosis vaccines update: Is an RNA-based vaccine feasible for tuberculosis?International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent emergence of new variants of concern (VOCs) of SARS-CoV-2 and the uncertain duration of protection provided by the primary immunization cycle have highlighted the need for COVID-19 booster vaccinations. However, only a few studies have assessed the safety and reactogenicity profile of mRNA booster doses. Therefore, we conducted an online survey with the aim of assessing the adverse reaction profile in the 7 days following a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine in a population of resident physicians who had already been investigated after the primary vaccination. Among the 512 resident physicians (female = 53.2%, mean age = 29.8 years) invited to participate in the survey, 222 completed the survey (56.5% female, mean age of 29.9 years), with an average time from second to third dose of 8.6 months. The most common adverse reactions were local pain (88.3%), fatigue (58.1%), muscle/joint pain (44.1%), and headache (38.3%), all subsiding in 48-72 h. While the local reaction rate was similar to that following the first two doses, the systemic reactions were considerably less common and milder compared to the second vaccination. Nonetheless, over one third (36.1%) of participants reported interference with their normal activities. These results complement our previous findings and could aid occupational and public health professionals in the counselling of vaccinees.
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.