SynthesisTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene2025
How well do different COVID-19 vaccines protect against different viral variants? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2025. 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.
- The impact of pediatric influenza and COVID-19 hospitalization on parental attitudes toward vaccination.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Observational
- Article
- Cleaved versus Uncleaved: How furin cleavage reshapes the conformational landscape of SARS-CoV-2 spike.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Article
- Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination on Hospitalization and Mortality: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes During the Early Phase of the Pandemic.Infectious disease reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the efficacy of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been evaluated in numerous trials, comprehensive evidence on how protection by different vaccines has varied over time remains limited. We aimed to compare protective effects of different vaccines against different viral variants. To achieve this, we searched Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. Forest plots using Mantel-Haenszel and random-effects models were generated showing risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs by vaccines and variants. We included 36 studies with 90 variant-specific primary outcomes. We found a RR of 0.26 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.31) against all variants overall, with the highest protective effects against the wild-type (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18), followed by Alpha (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.36), Gamma (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.55), Delta (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56) and Beta (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62) variants. Nucleic acid vaccines showed the highest protection levels against all variants (RR 0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15), followed by protein subunit, inactivated virus and viral vector. In conclusion, we found high but heterogenous levels of protection for most COVID-19 vaccines, with decreasing protective effects for vaccines based on traditional technologies as SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged over time. Novel nucleic acid-based vaccines offered substantially higher and more consistent 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.