ArticleVaccines2023
Immune Response to CoronaVac and Its Safety in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Compared with Healthcare Workers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-Acquired Pneumonia in Patients With Diabetes: Narrative Review.JMIR diabetes · 2026Review
- Longitudinal Evaluation of Metabolic Benefits of Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccination in Diabetic Patients in Tianjin, China.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- COVID-19 vaccine coverage, safety, and perceptions among patients with diabetes mellitus in China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have been critical for preventing disease. Previous research showed patients with diabetes have impaired immunity. This study aimed to determine the immunity to coronavirus after CoronaVac by comparing patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and healthcare workers (HCW). MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective cohort study evaluated immune responses and safety after two doses of CoronaVac in T2D and HCW groups at Chulabhorn Hospital. The levels of total antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (anti-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein at baseline and 4 weeks after vaccination were collected. The level of anti-RBD concentrations was reported as geometric mean concentration (GMC) and compared between groups using the geometric mean ratio (GMR).
results81 participants were included; 27 had T2D and 54 were HCW. After complete vaccination, anti-RBD concentrations were not significantly different between T2D (57.68 binding antibody units (BAU)/mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 29.08; 114.44) and HCW (72.49 BAU/mL, 95% CI = 55.77; 94.22) groups. Subgroup analysis showed the GMC of anti-RBD was significantly lower in T2D patients with dyslipidaemia (50.04 BAU/mL) than in T2D patients without dyslipidaemia (341.64 BAU/mL).
conclusionsThe immune response at 4 weeks after two doses of CoronaVac did not significantly differ between patients with T2D and HCW.
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.