ArticleBirth defects research2025
Comparison of Perceived Adverse Events After COVID-19 Vaccination Between Pregnant and NonPregnant Women Using Two Cohort Studies in the Netherlands.
Article in Birth defects research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundMaternal vaccines are upcoming. A clear picture of the adverse events (AEs) after maternal vaccination and whether this is comparable to a nonpregnant population is important. The objective of our study was to compare perceived AEs after COVID-19 vaccination between pregnant and nonpregnant women and to study if it is feasible to compare AEs within two independent Dutch cohort studies.
methodsData from the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register (DPDR) and the cohort event monitoring (CEM) study on COVID-19 vaccines were used. At least one self-reported (solicited) AE, more than one AE, and specific self-reported AEs after the first doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were compared between pregnant and nonpregnant women using multivariable logistic regression analysis.
resultsThe pattern of AEs was similar between pregnant (n = 2204) and nonpregnant (n = 2684) women, with the four most frequently reported AEs being: injection site reaction, myalgia, fatigue, and headache. Pregnant women reported less often at least one AE compared to nonpregnant women (65.9% vs. 72.3%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67-0.90), more than one AE, or specific AEs: nausea, chills, pyrexia, and arthralgia. Myalgia was more often reported among pregnant women compared to nonpregnant women.
conclusionsPregnant women perceived comparable or less often AEs after the first mRNA COVID-19 vaccination compared to nonpregnant women. The results aid pregnant women in making an informed decision about vaccination. A comparison between the pregnancy registry and the CEM study was feasible and this method can be used to compare AEs for other/future maternal vaccines.
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.