ArticleEpidemiology and infection2025
Comparison of two methods for the estimation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness of the autumnal booster within the VEBIS-EHR network in 2022/23.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within an infrastructure to monitor vaccine effectiveness (VE) against hospitalization due to COVID-19 and COVID-19 related deaths from November 2022 to July 2023 in seven countries in real-world conditions (VEBIS network), we compared two approaches: (a) estimating VE of the first, second or third COVID-19 booster doses administered during the autumn of 2022, and (b) estimating VE of the autumn vaccination dose regardless of the number of prior doses (autumnal booster approach). Retrospective cohorts were constructed using Electronic Health Records at each participating site. Cox regressions with time-changing vaccination status were fit and site-specific estimates were combined using random-effects meta-analysis. VE estimates with both approaches were mostly similar, particularly shortly after the start of the vaccination campaign, and showed a similar timing of VE waning. However, autumnal booster estimates were more precise and showed a clearer trend, particularly compared to third booster estimates, as calendar time increased after the vaccination campaign and during periods of lower SARS-CoV-2 activity. Moreover, the decrease in protection by increasing calendar time was more clear and precise than when comparing protection by number of doses. Therefore, estimating VE under an autumnal booster framework emerges as a preferred method for future monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.
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.