ArticleJournal of preventive medicine and hygiene2022
Role of the 1
Article in Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of Remdesivir and Molnupiravir in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of effectiveness and safety of molnupiravir versus sotrovimab for COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2024Pooled it
- Vaccinomics and adversomics: key elements for a personalized vaccinology.Clinical and experimental vaccine research · 2024Review
- Towards a Future of Personalized Vaccinology: Study on Individual Variables Influencing the Antibody Response to the COVID-19 Vaccine.Vaccines · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a huge impact on human health with high morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. Healthcare Workers (HCWs) are one of the most at risk categories to contract the infection. Effective anti-COVID-19 vaccines were approved in a very short time. Making the 1 Methods: We conducted a retrospective sero-epidemiological survey of already existing data concerning the antibody response of a HCWs sample vaccinated with the primary cycle and the 1 Results: In our analysis, after the primary cycle, a 95.15% efficacy was detected. Among the non-responders, women were significantly more frequent (69.56%). Moreover, we found a significant reverse correlation between the immune response and the age of the sample, especially in women. However, the 1 Conclusions: Our data are perfectly in line with what has been declared by the conducted studies in terms of efficacy. However, it is important to highlight that people with only the primary cycle are at high risk to contract the COVID-19 infection. Therefore, it is necessary to not consider people vaccinated with the primary cycle completely risk-free and to stress the importance to perform the 1
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.