ArticleCommunications medicine2024
Comparison of physiological and clinical reactions to COVID-19 and influenza vaccination.
Article in Communications medicine, 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.
- Enhancing randomized controlled trials through smartwatch-guided participant matching for infectious disease outcomes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Post-vaccine inflammation tracking: validation of a novel individualized digital inflammatory biomarker relative to serum biomarkers.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Smartwatch-derived versus self-reported outcomes of physiological recovery after COVID-19, influenza, and group A streptococcus: a 2-year prospective cohort study.The Lancet. Digital health · 2026Article
- Development of a personalized digital biomarker of vaccine-associated reactogenicity using wearable sensors and digital twin technology.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of physiological and clinical reactions to COVID-19 and influenza vaccination.Communications medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublic reluctance to receive COVID-19 vaccination is associated with safety concerns. By contrast, the seasonal influenza vaccine has been administered for decades with a solid safety record and a high level of public acceptance. We compare the safety profile of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 booster vaccine to that of the seasonal influenza vaccine.
methodsWe study a prospective cohort of 5079 participants in Israel and a retrospective cohort of 250,000 members of MHS selected randomly. We examine reactions to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 booster and to influenza vaccinations. All prospective cohort participants wore a smartwatch and completed a daily digital questionnaire. We compare pre-vaccination and post-vaccination smartwatch heart-rate data, and a stress measure based on heart-rate variability. We also examine adverse events from electronic health records.
resultsIn the prospective cohort, 1905 participants receive the COVID-19 booster vaccine; 899 receive influenza vaccination. Focusing on those who receive both vaccines yields a total of 689 participants in the prospective cohort and 31,297 members in the retrospective cohort. Individuals reporting a more severe reaction after influenza vaccination tend to likewise report a more severe reaction after COVID-19 vaccination. In paired analysis, the increase in both heart rate and stress measure for each participant is higher for COVID-19 than for influenza in the first 2 days after vaccination. No elevated risk of hospitalization due to adverse events is found following either vaccine. Except for Bell's palsy after influenza vaccination, no elevated risk of adverse events is found.
conclusionsThe more pronounced side effects after COVID-19 vaccination may explain the greater concern associated with it. Nevertheless, our comprehensive analysis supports the safety profile of both vaccines.
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.