ReviewVaccine: X2024
COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing symptomatic and severe infection among healthcare workers: A clinical review.
Review in Vaccine: X, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Increase in Healthcare-Associated Infections: Is COVID-19 Responsible? A Narrative Review.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- SARS-CoV-2 infection in dogs, dog owners, dog breeders, and veterinarians in the Ashanti and Greater Accra regions of Ghana-zoonotic implications.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Observational
- Long COVID in Healthcare Workers from a Pediatric Hospital in Romania: A Cross-Sectional Study of Prevalence, Symptom Burden, and the Role of Vaccination and Reinfection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Risk factors for infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of Canadian healthcare workers: 2020-2023.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Article
- The WHO Algorithm for Causality Assessment of Adverse Effects Following Immunization with Genetic-Based Anti-COVID-19 Vaccines: Pitfalls and Suggestions for Improvement.Journal of clinical 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Health care workers (HCWs) have been at increased risk of infection during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and as essential workers have been prioritised for vaccination. Due to increased exposure HCW are considered a predictor of what might happen in the general population, particularly working age adults. This study aims to summarise effect of vaccination in this 'at risk' cohort. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched, and 358 individual articles were identified. Of these 49 met the inclusion criteria for review and 14 were included in a meta-analysis. Results: Participants included were predominantly female and working age. Median time to infection was 51 days. Reported vaccine effectiveness against infection, symptomatic infection, and infection requiring hospitalisation were between 5 and 100 %, 34 and 100 %, and 65 and 100 % (respectively). No vaccinated HCW deaths were recorded in any study. Pooled estimates of protection against infection, symptomatic infection, and hospitalisation were, respectively, 84.7 % (95 % CI 72.6-91.5 %, Conclusions: Vaccination against SARS-CoV2 in HCWs is protective against infection, symptomatic infection, and hospitalisation. Waning protection is reported but this awaits more mature studies to understand durability more clearly. This study is limited by varying non-pharmacological responses to COVID-19 between included studies, a predominantly female and working age population, and limited information on asymptomatic transmission or long COVID protection.
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.