ArticleVaccines2024
The Effectiveness of the Third Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine: When Should It Be Performed?
Article in Vaccines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- eHealth interventions for chronic pain: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Analysis of humoral and cellular immune activation up to 21 months after heterologous and homologous COVID-19 vaccination.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Factors behind Antibiotic Therapy: A Survey of Primary Care Pediatricians in Lombardy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Vaccination Open Day: A Cross-Sectional Study on the 2023 Experience in Lombardy Region, Italy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 vaccination is the most significant step toward the long-term mitigation of SARS-CoV-2-related complication, avoiding disease and death and decreasing virus spread. This study aimed to evaluate, in a real-world setting, booster dose effectiveness to reduce COVID-19 risk considering the amount of time after the end of the two-dose vaccination cycle. A sub-analysis was conducted to adjust the booster dose effect for occupational and demographic factors.
methodsAbout 16,000 COVID-19-vaccinated HCWs of three University Hospital Networks in Milan (HN1/HN2/HN3) were included in the study. Data were collected by Occupational Health Physicians of the HNs within specific computerized databases.
resultsIn univariable analysis, booster dose administration displayed a slightly higher risk of infection with respect to not receiving it, OR = 1.18, with 95% confidence interval (C.I) [0.99, 1.41]. When the model was adjusted with the modulating effect of time from the completion of the vaccination cycle on booster dose administration, the latter resulted in strong protective effect against infection, OR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.26, 0.74]. However, considering the modifying influence of time from the vaccination cycle's completion, the administration of booster doses appeared to have a protective effect against infection. In HN1, students and resident physicians displayed lower odds of infection with respect to physicians. Lastly, a non-linear effect of age was reported.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that the correct timing in vaccine scheduling and administration is critical to vaccine effectiveness. These findings, applicable to all vaccinations, should help in setting up more effective vaccination strategies.
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.