SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2023
Relative effectiveness of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses Following Bivalent SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis: A Prospective Cohort Study.Kidney medicine · 2026Article
- Relative efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of bivalent versus monovalent COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines: a randomized trial.Research square · 2026Article
- BNT162b2 LP.8.1 early vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 emergency department, urgent care, and outpatient visits.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Protection from second booster vaccines and natural immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2022-2023.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Observational
- Effect of a Third COVID-19 Vaccine Dose on the Incidence of Long COVID Among Adults Who Completed a Primary Vaccine Series: a Target Trial Emulation in a Community-Based Cohort.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Neutralizing Antibody Response to SARS-CoV-2 Variants After Two mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Doses in a Cohort of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease from a Southern Italy Tertiary Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Update on Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines and the Challenges to Protect Against New SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Impact of Vaccination on COVID-19, Influenza, and Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Related Outcomes: A Narrative Review.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Review
- Article
- Protection of Omicron Bivalent Vaccine, Previous Infection, and Their Induced Neutralizing Antibodies Against Symptomatic Infection With Omicron XBB.1.16 and EG.5.1.Open forum infectious diseases · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The rapid development of COVID-19 bivalent vaccines (BVs) has encompassed both the original virus strains and the variant strain. However, the effectiveness of BVs is largely unknown. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of BVs. Methods: Literature research was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science up until November 4, 2023. Both randomized control trials and observational studies were considered for inclusion. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in cohort and case-control studies. Results: A total of 1,174 articles were reviewed and 22 eligible studies were included. All included studies were observational (15 cohort studies, 7 case-control studies). The total number of participants was 39,673,160, and the number of people vaccinated with BVs as an intervention group was 11,585,182. Two mRNA BVs were mainly involved, including the ancestral strain and the BA.1 or BA.4-5 variants. Meta-analysis results showed, compared with the monovalent vaccines (MVs), the relative effectiveness (rVE) of the BVs in COVID-19-associated infections/symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths was 30.90% [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.43-53.37], 39.83% (95% CI, 27.34-52.32), 59.70% (95% CI, 44.08-75.32), and 72.23% (95% CI, 62.08-82.38), respectively. For those aged 50 years and older, BVs provided an additional 49.69% (95% CI, 41.44-57.94) effective protection compared with MVs. During the dominance period of the omicron XBB variant strain, BVs provided an additional 47.63% (95% CI, 27.45-67.82) effective protection compared with MVs. Conclusion: Our findings show that the rVE of BVs in preventing COVID-19-associated infections, symptomatic infections, illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths is higher compared to MVs. Particularly for people over 50 years of age and during the Omicron variant XBB dominance phase, BVs provided superior protection. Therefore, BVs may have a broader application in the prevention and control of coronaviruses variant.
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.