ReviewJournal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA2023
The Omicron variant wave: Where are we now and what are the prospects?
Review in Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- New variants of COVID-19 (XBB.1.5 and XBB.1.16, the "Arcturus"): A review of highly questioned concerns, a brief comparison between different peaks in the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focused systematic review on expert recommendations for prevention, vaccination, and treatment measures in the general population and at-risk groups.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2024Pooled it
- Winners of the 2022 honor awards for excellence at the annual meeting of the Chinese Medical Association-Taipei: Part II.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of N-acetylcysteine in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 may be in doubt but in uncertainty.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Omicron variant BA.2 is the dominant form of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in many countries, including those that have already implemented the strictest quarantine mandates that effectively contained the spread of the previous variants. Although many individuals were partially or fully vaccinated, confirmed Omicron infections have far surpassed all other variants combined in just a couple of months since the Omicron variant emerged. The ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca), BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines offer protection against the severe illness of SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, these currently available vaccines are less effective in terms of preventing Omicron infections. As a result, a booster dose of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 is recommended for individuals >12 years old who had received their second dose of the approved vaccines for >5 months. Herein, we review the studies that assessed the clinical benefits of the booster dose of vaccines against Omicron infections. We also analyzed public data to address whether early booster vaccination effectively prevented the surge of the Omicron infections. Finally, we discuss the consideration of a fourth dose of vaccine as a way to prevent possible upcoming infections.
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.