Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36438045›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022

COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and hospitalization: Meta-analysis.

Maria Elena Flacco, Cecilia Acuti Martellucci, Valentina Baccolini, Corrado De Vito, Erika Renzi, Paolo Villari, Lamberto Manzoli

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Antiviral Activity of Medicinal Plant ExtractsPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Maria Elena FlaccoDepartment of Environmental and Prevention Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Cecilia Acuti MartellucciDepartment of Environmental and Prevention Sciences, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Valentina BaccoliniDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Corrado De VitoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Erika RenziDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Paolo VillariDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Lamberto ManzoliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Ferrara · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The addictive protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection conferred by vaccination, as compared to natural immunity alone, remains to be quantified. We thus carried out a meta-analysis to summarize the existing evidence on the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and the risk of reinfection and disease. We searched MedLine, Scopus and preprint repositories up to July 31, 2022, to retrieve cohort or case-control studies comparing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection or severe/critical COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated subjects, recovered from a primary episode. Data were combined using a generic inverse-variance approach. Eighteen studies, enrolling 18,132,192 individuals, were included. As compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated subjects showed a significantly lower likelihood of reinfection (summary Odds Ratio-OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.42-0.54). Notably, the results did not change up to 12 months of follow-up, by number of vaccine doses, in studies that adjusted for potential confounders, adopting different reinfection definitions, and with different predominant strains. Once reinfected, vaccinated subjects were also significantly less likely to develop a severe disease (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.38-0.54). Although further studies on the long-term persistence of protection, under the challenge of the new circulating variants, are clearly needed, the present meta-analysis provides solid evidence of a stronger protection of hybrid vs. natural immunity, which may persist during Omicron waves and up to 12 months.

Indexed as

COVID-19meta-analysisOmicron (B.1.1.529)reinfectionSARS-CoV-2vaccination

Identifiers

PMID36438045
PMCPMC9681813
OpenAlexW4308723248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.