Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37361171›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in public health2023

Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against Omicron infection and severe events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test-negative design studies.

Shangchen Song, Zachary J Madewell, Mingjin Liu, Ira M Longini, Yang Yang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Rapid luminescence-based screening method for SARS- CoV-2 inhibitors discovery.SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Recent Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Is Associated with Less Severe Disease in Working-Age Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Shangchen Song *Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health and Health professions and Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Zachary J Madewell *Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health and Health professions and Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Mingjin LiuDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health and Health professions and Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Ira M LonginiDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health and Health professions and Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Yang YangDepartment of Statistics, Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States.

Funding

Design and Analysis of Vaccine Trials for Emerging Infectious Disease ThreatsR01AI139761 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DEAN, NATALIE EXNER · 2018 to 2022
$3.6M
NCEZID CDC HHS U01 CK000670NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI139761
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A rapidly growing body was observed of literature evaluating the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron in test-negative design studies. Methods: We systematically searched papers that evaluated VE of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv published from November 26th, 2021, to June 27th, 2022 (full doses and the first booster), and to January 8th, 2023 (the second booster). The pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events were estimated. Results: From 2,552 citations identified, 42 articles were included. The first booster provided stronger protection against Omicron than full doses alone, shown by VE estimates of 53.1% (95% CI: 48.0-57.8) vs. 28.6% (95% CI: 18.5-37.4) against infection and 82.5% (95% CI: 77.8-86.2) vs. 57.3% (95% CI: 48.5-64.7) against severe events. The second booster offered strong protection among adults within 60 days of vaccination against infection (VE=53.1%, 95% CI: 48.0-57.8) and severe events (VE=87.3% (95% CI: 75.5-93.4), comparable to the first booster with corresponding VE estimates of 59.9% against infection and 84.8% against severe events. The VE estimates of booster doses against severe events among adults sustained beyond 60 days, 77.6% (95% CI: 69.4-83.6) for first and 85.9% (95% CI: 80.3-89.9) for the second booster. The VE estimates against infection were less sustainable regardless of dose type. Pure mRNA vaccines provided comparable protection to partial mRNA vaccines, but both provided higher protection than non-mRNA vaccines. Conclusions: One or two SARS-CoV-2 booster doses provide considerable protection against Omicron infection and substantial and sustainable protection against Omicron-induced severe clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesAdultHumansmRNA VaccinesSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 VaccinesmRNA Vaccinesbooster dosemeta-analysisOmicrontest negativevaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID37361171
PMCPMC10289159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.