ReviewVaccines2023
A Systematic Review on the Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines Approved in Saudi Arabia.
Review in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Parents' views on pediatric COVID-19 vaccine in Saudi Arabia.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Short-term side effects of BNT162b2 vaccine in primary care settings in Qatar: a retrospective study.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Significant association between asthma and a lower risk of mortality among COVID-19 patients in Spain: A meta-analysis.Qatar medical journal · 2024Review
- Dose Intervals and Time since Final Dose on Changes in Metabolic Indices after COVID-19 Vaccination.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Characteristics of COVID-19 Patients Admitted to Intensive Care Unit in Multispecialty Hospital of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Heterologous Booster with BNT162b2 Induced High Specific Antibody Levels in CoronaVac Vaccinees.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comprehensive safety and efficacy studies of COVID-19 vaccines might reduce the apprehension of the general population about the adverse reactions and duration of protection offered by them. The study aimed to conduct a systemic review on the four COVID-19 vaccines (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen) approved in Saudi Arabia. The study was conducted by reviewing the published articles from electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science using the search terms "COVID-19", "Vaccine", "Safety", "Efficacy" and "Human trials" and as per the standard guidelines for systemic review. The review analyzed eighteen articles and the data from them were evaluated to analyze the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in different groups of population such as males, females, those above 18 years and people with co-morbidities. The common local reactions observed after vaccination were pain at the site of injection (40-70%), redness (16-30%), swelling (18-39%) and tenderness (20-40%). The systemic reactions reported were fever (40-60%), chills (12-23%), fatigue (44-65%), headache (30-42%) and muscle pain (15-40%). The efficacy was observed to be above the threshold value (60%) stipulated by the WHO. However, precautions need to be followed while vaccinating special groups of population such as those that are pregnant, lactating or experiencing severe illness. Additionally, the rare and serious adverse events reported remotely after vaccination need more studies.
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.