ArticleVaccines2023
Effectiveness of Vaccination in Preventing COVID-19: A Community Study Comparing Four Vaccines.
Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine in children and adolescents aged 5 to 18 years: a cohort event monitoring study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccination Intention and Behavior Among Young People in a European Union Country With Low COVID-19 Vaccination Rates: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- Methodology of comparative studies on the relative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The course of the COVID-19 pandemic has been critically altered by the availability of vaccines. To assess the risk of COVID-19 in the vaccinated, as compared to the unvaccinated population, as well as the comparative effectiveness of the BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech), Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik V) and ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) vaccines in the prevention of clinical infection, we carried out a retrospective study of the incidence of clinical COVID-19 in the Belgrade city municipality of Voždovac among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals during a 4-month period between 1 July and 31 October 2021. The study included all individuals with a symptomatic infection confirmed by a positive PCR and/or antigen test. Only those who received two vaccine doses were considered as vaccinated. The results showed that of the Voždovac population of 169,567, a total of 81,447 (48%) individuals were vaccinated by the end of the study. Vaccination coverage increased with age, ranging from 1.06% in those below age 18, to even 78.8% in those above 65 years of age. More than one half (57.5%) of all those vaccinated received BBIBP-CorV, while 25.2% received BNT162b2, 11.7% Gam-COVID-Vac and 5.6% ChAdOx1. The overall risk of infection of the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated was 0.53 (95% CI 0.45-0.61). Compared to the incidence of COVID-19 of 8.05 per 1000 in the unvaccinated population, the relative risk in the vaccinated was 0.35 (95% CI 0.3-0.41). The overall VE was 65%, differing widely among age groups and by vaccine. VE was 79% for BNT162b2, 62% for BBIBP-CorV, 60% for ChAdOx1 and 54% for Gam-COVID-Vac. The VE for BBIBP-CorV and BNT162b2 increased with age. The obtained results demonstrate a significant overall effectiveness of anti-COVID-19 vaccination, which, however, varied significantly among the analyzed vaccines, and was the highest for BNT162b2.
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.