ArticlePloS one2025
Effectiveness over time of a primary series of the original monovalent COVID-19 vaccines in adults in the United States.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Safety of COVID-19 mRNA-1273 booster doses in Asian populations: A literature review of post-marketing observational studies.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Hospitalisation and mortality outcomes after second COVID-19 vaccination among Australians living with severe mental illness: Findings from a matched case-control study using national data linkage.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With data from 2 US claims databases (Optum, CVS Health) supplemented with Immunization Information System COVID-19 vaccine records, we evaluated overall and time-specific vaccine effectiveness (VE) of an initial primary series for 3 monovalent COVID-19 vaccines-BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, and JNJ-7836735-in adults (18-64 years). Vaccinated individuals were matched to unvaccinated comparators, and we estimated VE against any medically diagnosed COVID-19 and hospital/emergency department (ED)-diagnosed COVID-19. Additionally, we estimated VE by era of predominant variants, in subgroups, and compared across vaccine brands. The cohorts consisted of 341,097 (Optum) and 1,151,775 (CVS Health) matched pairs for BNT162b2; 201,604 (Optum) and 651,545 (CVS Health) for mRNA-1273; and 49,285 (Optum) and 149,813 (CVS Health) for JNJ-7836735. The study period began 11 December 2020 (date of first COVID-19 vaccine availability in the US) and ended 15 January 2022 in Optum and 31 March 2022 in CVS Health. Summary VE estimates from meta-analysis against hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 were: BNT162b2, 77% (95% CI, 76%-78%); mRNA-1273, 84% (95% CI, 83%-85%), JNJ-7836735 66% (95% CI, 63%-68%). VE estimates were higher for hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19 than for medically diagnosed COVID-19, and VE estimates were highest in adults receiving mRNA-1273 for both outcomes. VE was sustained for approximately 7 months for medically diagnosed and up to 9 months for hospital/ED-diagnosed COVID-19. VE differed by brand and variant era. Ongoing real-world surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines using robust data sources and methodology is needed as new variants and recommendations for updated vaccines have evolved.
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.