ArticleVaccines2022
Early Real-World Data to Assess Benefits and Risks of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Systematic Review of Methods.
Article in Vaccines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccines Among Adults with Underlying Medical Conditions: Systematic Literature Review and Pairwise Meta-Analysis Using GRADE.Advances in therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of Phenotypes of Headaches After COVID-19 Vaccinations Differentiated According to the Vaccine Used.Vaccines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since the authorization of the first COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020, multiple studies using real-world data (RWD) have been published to assess their effectiveness/safety profile. This systematic review aimed to characterize the methods and outcomes of studies using RWD for assessment of COVID-19 vaccines, four months after vaccine approval. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify published studies until 6 May 2021. Two independent researchers selected relevant publications and extracted data from included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using New-Castle Ottawa tools. After screening 1086 studies, 15 were included. Out of the 15 studies, 12 (80%) followed a cohort design, 8 (53%) were based on USA data, 7 (47%) assessed health care professionals, and 14 articles (93%) assessed the BNT162b2 vaccine. Data sources included institutional databases, electronic health records, and patient-generated data. The primary endpoint mainly described was SARS-CoV-2-infection. Hospitalization and mortality were assessed in 2 studies. For the comparability domain, six studies (40%) had a high risk of bias. A few months after the beginning of COVID-19 vaccination, Real-world Evidence (RWE) provided timely safety surveillance and comparative effectiveness with findings that showed similar findings to Randomized control trial (RCT). Most of the initiatives assessed BNT162b2 and were conducted in the USA and used healthcare workers' data.
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.