ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2023
Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and the CoronaVac vaccines and boosters in healthcare workers.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodology of comparative studies on the relative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a systematic review.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2024Article
- Waning Humoral Immune Response Following the Third and Fourth SARS-COV-2 Vaccine: A Cohort Study in Healthcare Workers.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2024Article
- Relative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine booster doses in people aged 65 and older-a retrospective cohort study in Türkiye.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evidence on the waning protection of COVID-19 vaccines has been reviewed by the World Health Organization and has led to consideration of the need for booster doses. This study aimed to evaluate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19, and the COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers who received various types (inactive or m-RNA) and doses (2 to 4 doses) of the COVID-19 vaccine. The study was conducted with a total of 3,009 healthcare workers between August 1 and November 30, 2021 at a university hospital. Six different vaccination statuses were evaluated in the study. The effectiveness for COVID-19 infection, after adjusting for age, sex, and position, was highest in those who received two doses of CoronaVac and two doses of BNT162b2 (89.3%, 95% CI 72.2-95.9%) and was lowest in those who received two doses of CoronaVac (29%, 95% CI - 8-53%). The adjusted effectiveness of two doses of CoronaVac for COVID-19 infection was not significant (21.0%, 95% CI - 20.7-48.3%) but increased significantly with a booster dose of CoronaVac or BNT162b2. One or two doses of the BNT162b2 booster demonstrated higher effectiveness in comparison to a single dose of the CoronaVac booster. These results indicate the need for a booster dose, and heterologous boosting with BNT162b2 may be a better option for higher effectiveness for those who received two doses of CoronaVac. Future studies should evaluate the need for further booster doses and their long-term effects.
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.