Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37113820›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2023

Regulatory approval pathway for COVID-19 vaccine in USA, Europe and India.

Jaipratap Narasimhan, Saba Maanvizhi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jaipratap NarasimhanDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Sri Ramachandra Faculty of Pharmacy, SRIHER (DU), Porur, Chennai, India.
Saba MaanvizhiDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Sri Ramachandra Faculty of Pharmacy, SRIHER (DU), Porur, Chennai, India.
Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has confused everyone, including healthcare experts, physicians and frontline workers. Monoclonal antibodies, anticoagulants and immunomodulatory therapy were initially used to treat COVID-19. However, they can only inhibit the virus from replicating, which is not enough to provide a lasting cure. As each month passes, a growing number of companies are working on vaccinations that will aid in the development of resistance against the corona virus. As a result, all regulatory bodies have stated that if a vaccine has high efficacy and low risk of adverse events, it will be approved through an emergency use application. However, there is one major hindrance: After completing phase II clinical trials with an emergency use application, the product can be released to the market. However, the firm should conduct phase III and phase IV trials at the same time, with peer review occurring after each cycle of clinical trials and also market data to be presented simultaneously to track adverse events. In this article, the author has compared the standard approval process (i.e. Standard Biological License application) with the emergency use application to describe how the COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the different regulatory bodies.

Indexed as

adverse eventsCOVID-19emergency use applicationvaccine

Identifiers

PMID37113820
PMCPMC10129106
OpenAlexW4367320518

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.