ReviewBMC infectious diseases2024
Comparative efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in phase III trials: a network meta-analysis.
Review in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- CT scan-derived pectoralis muscle parameters are closely associated with COVID-19 outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of leading COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Pooled it
- Patient Characteristics and Healthcare Resource Use among Patients With COVID-19 Receiving Treatment with Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (PAXLOVID™) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.Pulmonary therapy · 2026Article
- Factors influencing Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels after vaccination in breast cancer patients.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- The Future of mRNA Platforms: Strategic Pause or Premature Pivot?Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Cellular immune breadth of an Omicron-specific, self-amplifying monovalent mRNA vaccine booster for COVID-19.NPJ vaccines · 2025Article
- Neutralizing and binding antibody dynamics following primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Observational
- Observational
- Serious adverse events following immunization and predictors of mortality associated with COVID-19 vaccination in India: a secondary data analysis of nationwide causality assessments.Therapeutic advances in vaccines and immunotherapy · 2025Article
- Article
- The Ambivalence of Post COVID-19 Vaccination Responses in Humans.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- SARS-CoV-2 Evolution: Immune Dynamics, Omicron Specificity, and Predictive Modeling in Vaccinated Populations.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Public Health and Economic Impact of Periodic COVID-19 Vaccination with BNT162b2 for Old Adults and High-Risk Patients in an Illustrative Prefecture of Japan: A Budget Impact Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2024Article
- Review
- Special Issue "Latest Research in Post-COVID (Long COVID): Pathological and Treatment Studies of Sequelae and Complications".Biomedicines · 2024Article
- COVID-19 vaccines: current and future challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOver a dozen vaccines are in or have completed phase III trials at an unprecedented speed since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic. In this review, we aimed to compare and rank these vaccines indirectly in terms of efficacy and safety using a network meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to September 30, 2023. Two investigators independently selected articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes included efficacy in preventing symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) according to vaccine type and individual vaccines in adults and elderly individuals. The risk ratio and mean differences were calculated with 95% confidence intervals using a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 25 RCTs involving 22 vaccines were included in the study. None of vaccines had a higher incidence of SAEs than the placebo. Inactivated virus vaccines might be the safest, with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 0.16. BIV1-CovIran showed the highest safety index (SUCRA value: 0.13), followed by BBV152, Soberana, Gam-COVID-Vac, and ZF2001. There were no significant differences among the various types of vaccines regarding the efficacy in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, although there was a trend toward higher efficacy of the mRNA vaccines (SUCRA value: 0.09). BNT162b2 showed the highest efficacy (SUCRA value: 0.02) among the individual vaccines, followed by mRNA-1273, Abdala, Gam-COVID-Vac, and NVX-CoV2373. BNT162b2 had the highest efficacy (SUCRA value: 0.08) in the elderly population, whereas CVnCoV, CoVLP + AS03, and CoronaVac were not significantly different from the placebo.
conclusionsNone of the different types of vaccines were significantly superior in terms of efficacy, while mRNA vaccines were significantly inferior in safety to other types. BNT162b2 had the highest efficacy in preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in adults and the elderly, whereas BIV1-CovIran had the lowest incidence of SAEs in adults.
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.