Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36851102›Full record

ReviewVaccines2023

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Real-World Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against Infection, Symptomatic and Severe COVID-19 Disease Caused by the Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529).

Hassen Mohammed, Dan Duy Pham-Tran, Zi Yi Michelle Yeoh, Bing Wang, Mark McMillan, Prabha H Andraweera, Helen S Marshall

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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.

Hassen MohammedVaccinology and Immunology Research Trials Unit, Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.
Dan Duy Pham-TranRobinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.
Zi Yi Michelle YeohRobinson Research Institute and Adelaide Medical School, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.
Bing WangVaccinology and Immunology Research Trials Unit, Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.
Mark McMillanVaccinology and Immunology Research Trials Unit, Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6490-7707
Prabha H AndraweeraVaccinology and Immunology Research Trials Unit, Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-8370
Helen S MarshallVaccinology and Immunology Research Trials Unit, Women's and Children's Health Network, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Real-world data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is limited. This systematic review aimed to investigate the real-world effectiveness and durability of protection conferred by primary course and booster vaccines against confirmed Omicron infection, and severe outcomes. We systematically searched literature up to 1 August 2022. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to estimate the pooled vaccine effectiveness (VE). Overall, 28 studies were included representing 11 million individuals. The pooled VE against Omicron infection was 20.4% (95%CI: 12.1-28.7%) and 23.4% (95%CI: 13.5-33.3%) against symptomatic infection with variation based on vaccine type and age groups. VE sharply declined from 28.1% (95%CI: 19.1-37.1%) at three months to 3.9% (95%CI: -24.8-32.7%) at six months. Similar trends were observed for symptomatic Omicron infection. A booster dose restored protection against Omicron infection up to 51.1% (95%CI: 43.8-58.3%) and 57.3% (95%CI: 54.0-60.5%) against symptomatic infection within three months; however, this waned to 32.8% (95%CI: 16.8-48.7%) within six months. VE against severe Omicron infection following the primary course was 63.6% (95%CI: 57.5-69.7%) at three months, decreased to 49% (95%CI: 35.7-63.4%) within six months, and increased to 86% after the first or second booster dose.

Indexed as

booster vaccinationCOVID-19COVID-19 vaccinesOmicronvaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID36851102
PMCPMC9965204

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.