ArticleVaccines2024
Burden and Impact of Reactogenicity among Adults Receiving COVID-19 Vaccines in the United States and Canada: Results from a Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and immunogenicity of a COVID-19-Influenza Combination nanoparticle vaccine (CIC) containing SARS-CoV-2 recombinant spike and quadrivalent influenza hemagglutinin with Matrix-M® adjuvant: A phase 1/2 clinical trial.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Trial
- mRNA and Protein Subunit COVID-19 Vaccine Reactogenicity and Their Relationship to Productivity for Healthcare Workers and First Responders.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Update on Vaccination Recommendations for Adults with HIV.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2025Review
- New COVID-19 vaccination recommendations in Spain: Optimizing for next seasons.Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica · 2025Review
- COVID-19 Vaccine Preferences in General Populations in Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States: Discrete Choice Experiment.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Reactogenicity Differences between Adjuvanted, Protein-Based and Messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA)-Based COVID-19 Vaccines.Vaccines · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As SARS-CoV-2 variants continue to emerge, vaccination remains a critical tool to reduce the COVID-19 burden. Vaccine reactogenicity and the impact on work productivity/daily activities are recognized as contributing factors to vaccine hesitancy. To encourage continued COVID-19 vaccination, a more complete understanding of the differences in reactogenicity and impairment due to vaccine-related side effects across currently available vaccines is necessary. The 2019nCoV-406 study (n = 1367) was a prospective observational study of reactogenicity and associated impairments in adults in the United States and Canada who received an approved/authorized COVID-19 vaccine. Compared with recipients of mRNA COVID-19 booster vaccines, a smaller percentage of NVX-CoV2373 booster recipients reported local and systemic reactogenicity. This study's primary endpoint (percentage of participants with ≥50% overall work impairment on ≥1 of the 6 days post-vaccination period) did not show significant differences. However, the data suggest that NVX-CoV2373 booster recipients trended toward being less impaired overall than recipients of an mRNA booster; further research is needed to confirm this observed trend. The results of this real-world study suggest that NVX-CoV2373 may be a beneficial vaccine option with limited impact on non-work activities, in part due to the few reactogenicity events after vaccination.
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.