SynthesisJournal of research in health sciences2023
Comparing the Efficacy and Adverse Events of Available COVID-19 Vaccines Through Randomized Controlled Trials: Updated Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of research in health sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Polyethylene Glycols Stimulate CaInternational journal of nanomedicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent vaccines have so far been developed and approved to cope with COVID-19 in the world. The aim of this updated network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare and rank all available vaccines in terms of efficacy and complications simultaneously.
methodsThree major international databases, including Web of Science, Medline via PubMed, and Scopus, were searched through September 2023. The transitivity assumption was evaluated qualitatively in terms of epidemiologic effect modifiers. The exposure of interest in this study was receiving any available COVID-19 vaccine, and the primary outcome of interest was the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19. In this NMA, the relative risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was used to summarize the efficacy of vaccines in preventing COVID-19. The data were analyzed using the frequentist-based approach, and the results were reported using a random-effects model. Finally, the vaccines were ranked using a P-score.
resultsIn total, 34 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria for this systematic review and NMA out of 3682 retrieved references. Based on the results of the NMA, mRNA-1273 was the most effective vaccine in preventing COVID-19 and demonstrated the highest P-score (0.93). The relative risk (RR) for mRNA-1273 versus placebo was 0.07 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03, 0.17). The second and third-ranked vaccines were BNT-162b2 (RR=0.08; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.15; P-score=0.93) and Gam-COVID-Vac (0.09; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.25; 0.88).
conclusionBased on the results of this NMA, it seems that all available vaccines were effective in COVID-19 prevention. However, the top three ranked vaccines were mRNA-1273, BNT-162b2, and Gam-COVID-Vac, respectively.
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.