Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36820653›Full record

ArticleRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical2023

Humoral responses to the CoronoVac vaccine in healthcare workers.

Gokhan Eyupoglu, Ramazan Guven, Nuran Karabulut, Adem Cakir, Kemal Sener, Burcu Genc Yavuz, Davut Tekyol, Akkan Avci

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Gokhan EyupogluUniversity of Health Sciences, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8583-3690
Ramazan GuvenUniversity of Health Sciences, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-8985
Nuran KarabulutUniversity of Health Sciences, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Department of Medical Virology, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3550-2599
Adem CakirUniversity of Health Sciences, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4966-4882
Kemal SenerUniversity of Health Sciences, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8579-6663
Burcu Genc YavuzUniversity of Health Sciences, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6693-5288
Davut TekyolUniversity of Health Sciences, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9353-6063
Akkan AvciUniversity of Health Sciences, Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Adana, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4627-0909

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to assess the immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody response rate in emergency department (ED) healthcare workers (HCWs) and potential adverse effects after CoronaVac vaccination.

methodsAll included HCWs were grouped based on the previous history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the number of vaccinations. Furthermore, the IgG antibody response was evaluated based on the sex and smoking status of HCWs. Those with a cut-off index of ≥1.00 after vaccination with CoronaVac were considered to have had COVID-19 and had an adequate humoral response.

resultsAmong 224 ED HCWs, 18% experienced the adverse effects of CoronaVac vaccine, the most prevalent being pain in the injection site. The IgG antibody response rate was 20% after the first dose of vaccine, while the response rate increased to 90% after the second dose. Female HCWs had higher IgG response rates compared with male HCWs (53.8 [15.9-147.0] vs 31.2 [4.5-124.0]). Non-smokers had higher IgG response rate compared with smokers (49.0 [11.5-160.5] vs 23.1 [7.4-98.5]).

conclusionA single dose of CoronaVac does not produce a sufficient antibody response; hence, two doses are recommended. Men have a lower IgG response compared with women. Smokers had a lower IgG response rate compared with non-smokers. Therefore, it may be necessary to carefully assess the humoral responses of men and smokers when implementing a community vaccination program.

Indexed as

COVID-19Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsVaccinesAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansImmunoglobulin GMaleVaccinationVaccines, InactivatedAntibodies, ViralCOVID-19 VaccinesImmunoglobulin Gsinovac COVID-19 vaccineVaccinesVaccines, Inactivated

Identifiers

PMID36820653
PMCPMC9957120

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.