ArticlePloS one2023
Waning vaccine response to severe COVID-19 outcomes during omicron predominance in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal Evolution of the Impact of CKD on COVID-19 Outcomes : A 5-Year Nationwide Analysis.Kidney360 · 2026Article
- Potential Public Health Impact of Updated COVID-19 Vaccination Strategies in Thailand: Epidemiological Data Update.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Article
- Incidence and risk factors of omicron variant SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection among vaccinated and boosted individuals.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Role of booster vaccines and hybrid immunity against severe COVID-19 outcomes during BA.5 omicron predominance in Thailand.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has evolved quickly, with different variants of concern resulting in the need to offer continued protection through booster vaccinations. The duration of enhanced protection with booster doses against severe COVID-19 is still unclear. Understanding this is critical to recommendations on the frequency of future booster doses.
methodsUtilising a Hospital Information System for COVID-19 established in Chiang Mai, Thailand, we conducted a cohort study by linking patient-level data of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases to the national immunization records, during the omicron predominant period (1 February- 31 July 2022).
resultsOut of 261,103 adults with COVID-19 included in the study, there were 333 (0.13%) severe COVID-19 cases and 190 (0.07%) deaths. Protection against severe COVID-19 was highest with boosters received >14-60 days prior to positive test (93%) and persisted at >60-120 days (91%) but started to wane at >120-180 days (77%) and further at >180 days (68%). The rate of waning differed with age. Those ≥70 years showed faster waning of booster vaccine responses as compared to those aged 18-49 years, who retained good responses up to 180 days. Equivalent risk reduction against severe COVID-19 was seen with all the vaccine types used as boosters in Thailand.
conclusionsBooster doses provided high levels of protection against severe COVID-19 with omicron, up to 4 months. Repeat boosters will be required to continue protection beyond 4 months, particularly in the elderly. mRNA and viral vector vaccines can be used flexibly to improve booster coverage.
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.