ArticleNature communications2024
Comparative effectiveness of alternative intervals between first and second doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modelling the Variability in Immunity Build-Up and Waning Following RNA-Based Vaccination.Viruses · 2025Article
- Optimal deployment of limited vaccine supplies to control mpox outbreaks.NPJ vaccines · 2025Article
- Article
- Designs for Vaccine Studies.Annual review of statistics and its application · 2025Article
- Memory B cell proliferation drives differences in neutralising responses between ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal interval between the first and second doses of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has not been thoroughly evaluated. Employing a target trial emulation approach, we compared the effectiveness of different interdose intervals among >6 million mRNA vaccine recipients in Georgia, USA, from December 2020 to March 2022. We compared three protocols defined by interdose interval: recommended by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (17-25 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; 24-32 days for Moderna), late-but-allowable (26-42 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; 33-49 days for Moderna), and late ( ≥ 43 days for Pfizer-BioNTech; ≥50 days for Moderna). In the short-term, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was lowest under the FDA-recommended protocol. Longer-term, the late-but-allowable protocol resulted in the lowest risk (risk ratio on Day 120 after the first dose administration compared to the FDA-recommended protocol: 0.83 [95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.84]). Here, we showed that delaying the second dose by 1-2 weeks may provide stronger long-term protection.
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.