Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38128943›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Md Obaidur Rahman, Taro Kamigaki, Moe Moe Thandar, Rei Haruyama, Fangyu Yan, Miho Shibamura-Fujiogi, July Khin Maung Soe, Md Rafiqul Islam, Daisuke Yoneoka, Reiko Miyahara and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. New COVID-19 vaccination recommendations in Spain: Optimizing for next seasons.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

12 authors.

Md Obaidur RahmanCenter for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan obaidur006@gmail.com obaidur@niid.go.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-2219-3013
Taro KamigakiCenter for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3612-4270
Moe Moe ThandarBureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-4806-185X
Rei HaruyamaBureau of International Health Cooperation, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0001-7239-2611
Fangyu YanCenter for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4872-0408
Miho Shibamura-FujiogiCenter for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-1600-6242
July Khin Maung SoeGraduate School of Public Health, St Luke's International University, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0009-0002-3394-1942
Md Rafiqul IslamDepartment of Population Science and Human Resource Development, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0001-6959-4554
Daisuke YoneokaCenter for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3525-5092
Reiko MiyaharaCenter for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-1998-505X
Erika OtaGraduate School of Nursing Science, Department of Global Health Nursing, St Luke's International University, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3945-7441
Motoi SuzukiCenter for Surveillance, Immunization, and Epidemiologic Research, National Institute of Infectious Diseases, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-8340-0880

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has raised concerns regarding waning vaccine-induced immunity and durability. We evaluated protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant and its sublineages.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and other resources (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, MedRxiv and bioRxiv) were searched until December 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies that assessed the effectiveness of mRNA vaccine booster doses against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes caused by the subvariant. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) at different time points after the third-dose and fourth-dose vaccination were extracted. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare VE of the third dose versus the primary series, no vaccination and the fourth dose at different time points. The certainty of the evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach.

resultsThis review included 50 studies. The third-dose VE, compared with the primary series, against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 48.86% (95% CI 44.90% to 52.82%, low certainty) at ≥14 days, and gradually decreased to 38.01% (95% CI 13.90% to 62.13%, very low certainty) at ≥90 days after the third-dose vaccination. The fourth-dose VE peaked at 14-30 days (56.70% (95% CI 50.36% to 63.04%), moderate certainty), then quickly declined at 61-90 days (22% (95% CI 6.40% to 37.60%), low certainty). Compared with no vaccination, the third-dose VE was 75.84% (95% CI 40.56% to 111.12%, low certainty) against BA.1 infection, and 70.41% (95% CI 49.94% to 90.88%, low certainty) against BA.2 infection at ≥7 days after the third-dose vaccination. The third-dose VE against hospitalisation remained stable over time and maintained 79.30% (95% CI 58.65% to 99.94%, moderate certainty) at 91-120 days. The fourth-dose VE up to 60 days was 67.54% (95% CI 59.76% to 75.33%, moderate certainty) for hospitalisation and 77.88% (95% CI 72.55% to 83.21%, moderate certainty) for death.

conclusionThe boosters provided substantial protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 6 months, although the duration of protection remains uncertain, suggesting the need for a booster dose within 6 months of the third-dose or fourth-dose vaccination. However, the certainty of evidence in our VE estimates varied from very low to moderate, indicating significant heterogeneity among studies that should be considered when interpreting the findings for public health policies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023376698.

Indexed as

COVID-19SARS-CoV-2COVID-19 VaccinesHumansmRNA VaccinesCOVID-19 VaccinesmRNA VaccinesCOVID-19meta-analysisSARS-CoV-2 infectionsystematic reviewvaccination

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.