ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Charting the COVID-19 vaccination journey in Saudi Arabia: Insights into post-vaccination adverse effects and immunization dynamics.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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.
- Article
- Burden, demographic patterns, and temporal trends of parotitis in Saudi Arabia, 2015-2023: a multicenter electronic health record study.Frontiers in epidemiology · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The current study evaluated the effects of different COVID-19 vaccines on Saudi Arabian residents, focusing on their safety, acceptance, and effectiveness. Gaining a better knowledge of these vaccination results will help develop more successful public health initiatives and increase confidence in vaccination campaigns throughout the Kingdom. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 401 participants from diverse backgrounds, covering different ages, genders, nationalities, weights, and education levels. The survey gathered information about participants' health conditions, their vaccines, side effects, and infection rates before and after vaccination. The data were analyzed to compare vaccine preferences, side effects, and infection trends overtime. Results: Sociodemographic-wise, most participants were men (62.84%) and Saudi nationals (96.01%), showing significant differences by gender and nationality (P < 0.001). The largest age group was 21-30 years (45.89%, P < 0.001), with 66.58% being university graduates (P < 0.001). Pfizer/BioNTech was the top choice across all doses, with 83.46% receiving it for the first dose, 78.1% for the second, and 39.28% for the third, reflecting a clear preference over other vaccines (P < 0.001). Pfizer/BioNTech recipients reported side effects after the first dose in 36.53% of cases, but only 1.86% needed medical help. Vaccination significantly reduced infection rates: Pfizer/BioNTech dropped infection rates from 43.18% to 8.33% after the third dose (P < 0.001), while Oxford/AstraZeneca saw rates fall from 12.88% to 0.76% after the third dose, but did not reach significance (P = 0.34). Overall, vaccinated individuals had much lower infection rates (28.17%) than among unvaccinated ones (100%), with a P-value of 0.020. Conclusion: Our results concluded that Saudi Arabia's vaccination campaign has proven effective, especially after the second and third doses. Pfizer/BioNTech was the most preferred vaccine, demonstrating strong efficacy and safety, which helped build public confidence. Ongoing monitoring is crucial to maintaining pandemic control, post-marketing and public health strategies.
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.