ArticleVaccines2023
Efficacy of Six Different SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines during a Six-Month Follow-Up and Five COVID-19 Waves in Brazil and Mexico.
Article in Vaccines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neutralizing antibody response to different COVID-19 vaccines in Brazil: the impact of previous infection and booster doses.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Methodology of comparative studies on the relative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2024Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of the COVID-19 Vaccine in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Real-World Setting.Vaccines · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of different booster vaccine combinations against SARS-CoV-2 during a six-month follow-up in Mexico and Argentina.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparisons among the different vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are important to understand which type of vaccine provides more protection. This study aimed to evaluate the real-life efficacy through symptomatic infection and the humoral response of six different vaccines against SARS-CoV-2-BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1-S, CoronaVac, Ad26.COV2, and Ad5-nCoV. This multicentric observational longitudinal study involved hospitals from Mexico and Brazil in which volunteers who received complete vaccination schemes were followed for 210 days after the last dose. SARS-CoV-2 Spike 1-2 IgG levels were taken before receiving the first vaccine, 21 days after each dose, and the last sample at six months (+/-1 month) after the last dose. A total of 1132 individuals exposed to five COVID-19 waves were included. All vaccines induced humoral responses, and mRNA vaccines had the highest antibody levels during follow-up. At six months, there was a decline in the SARS-CoV-2 Spike 1-2 IgG antibody titers of 69.5% and 36.4% in subjects with negative and positive history of infection respectively. Infection before vaccination and after complete vaccination scheme correlated with higher antibody titers. The predictors of infection were vaccination with CoronaVac compared to BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1-S. In the presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or dyslipidemia, CoronaVac lowered the risk of infection.
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.