SynthesisThe Indian journal of medical research2025
Comparative efficacy of leading COVID-19 vaccines: A network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Indian journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adapting covid-19 vaccination through targeted approaches: FDA-approved vaccines for the 2025-2026 season.Immunologic research · 2026Review
- Genomic Context and Insert Orientation in the Regulation of Transgene Expression in Adenoviral Vectors.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the fight against the COVID-19 virus, various vaccines using different technologies such as mRNA, viral vectors, protein subunits, and inactivated whole viruses have become primary defence strategies. This study aims to compare their effectiveness in controlling the spread of the pandemic. Using the comprehensive resources from three major databases-PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library-we conducted an extensive literature review up to April 30, 2023. By employing a frequentist network meta-analysis, we analysed both direct and indirect estimates of vaccine efficacy, providing a clear comparison of the leading candidates in the global fight against COVID-19. Fifteen vaccines from 26 articles were used in our network meta-analysis. The statistically significant direct estimates were obtained by Spikevax [VE: 93.29 (91.31, 95.27); P<0.05], Pfizer BioNTech [VE: 92.07 (90.03, 94.12); P<0.05], Sputnik [VE: 91.60 (85.60, 97.60); P<0.05], Novavax [VE: 88.99 (83.55, 94.42); P<0.05], Sinovac [VE: 83.50 (65.40, 101.60); P<0.05], Covifenz [VE: 77.27 (68.48, 86.06); P<0.05], Zifivax [VE: 75.94 (70.86, 81.02); P<0.05], Covishield [VE: 72.34 (67.12, 77.56); P<0.05], S-Trimer [VE: 71.61 (56.23, 86.98); P<0.05], Covaxin [VE: 70.81 (65.33, 76.29); P<0.05], Soberna [VE: 69.70 (56.50, 82.90); P<0.05], Zydus Cadila [VE: 66.60 (47.60, 85.60); P<0.05], CVnCoV [VE: 63.70 (52.20, 75.20); P<0.05], Convidecia [VE: 57.50 (39.70, 75.30); P <0.05], and Jcovden [VE : 52.42 (47.28, 57.57); P<0.05]. Spikevax emerged triumphant with an unparalleled P score of 0.95, solidifying its status as a top ranking prevention tool against the COVID-19 in our investigation. Our analysis reveals a ranking of vaccine efficacy, with Spikevax emerging as the most effective, followed closely by Comirnaty, Sputnik, and others, collectively providing strong protection against the ongoing threat of COVID-19.
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.