Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38488002›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of clinical investigation2024

Contralateral versus ipsilateral vaccine boosting for COVID-19: considering the broader scientific landscape.

Paul Goepfert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of clinical investigation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Paul Goepfert

Funding

The origin and future protective activity of SARS-CoV-2 RBD specific neutralizing antibodiesR01AI161175 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KOBIE, JAMES J, MARTINEZ-SOBRIDO, LUIS · 2021 to 2024
$2.5M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI161175
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the relentless battle against the COVID-19 pandemic, the deployment of mRNA vaccines has stood out as a beacon of hope. The successes of Pfizer-BioNTech NT162b2 and Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccines have been remarkable, marking a revolutionary advancement in the field of vaccinology. Despite their rapid development and impressive efficacy, challenges have emerged, particularly concerning the waning immune response over time and the evolving landscape of SARS-CoV-2 variants. The study published in this issue of JCI by Fazli et al. introduces an approach to potentially enhancing the immune responses generated by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The study meticulously examines the outcomes of nearly 1,000 participants who received one or two booster doses with the Pfizer-BioNTech NT162b2 vaccine either ipsilaterally or contralaterally in relation to the initial vaccine dose. Intriguingly, those who received the booster contralaterally exhibited a heightened antibody response that was particularly noteworthy in the later time points after boost.

Indexed as

COVID-19VaccinesAntibodies, ViralHumansmRNA VaccinesPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Antibodies, ViralmRNA VaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID38488002
PMCPMC10940083
OpenAlexW4392796824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.