ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2025
A scoping review of authorisation pathway for COVID
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 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.
- Systematic review protocol: evaluation of candidate platforms and vaccines for emerging and re-emerging viral threats.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Regulatory Strengthening as a Pillar of Health System Resilience for Sustainable Immunization.Vaccines · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In response to COVID-19 pandemic, NRAs implemented expedited mechanisms such as EUAs and CMAs, relying on international bodies, to authorize vaccines. Documenting these authorization pathways across countries informs NRAs and strengthens future pandemic responses. Existing studies on COVID-19 vaccine approvals are limited, underscoring the need for a comprehensive review. This study aimed to explore approval pathways, investigate supporting strategies, and review times for COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: A scoping review was conducted, covering countries with stringent regulatory authorities or countries with significant COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing or rapid rollout. Searches using terms such as 'approval process' and 'COVID-19 vaccine' were performed in electronic databases and on official regulatory authority websites. Countries without authorization information or with language barriers were excluded. Data on vaccine authorization processes including supporting strategies, submission criteria, and approval timelines were extracted and analyzed using content and comparative regulatory analysis. Results: Twenty-four regulatory pathways from 20 countries were identified, categorized as 'emergency use authorization' (EUA) ( Conclusion: Despite different regulatory pathways, all countries approved the first COVID-19 vaccine quickly. International collaboration was crucial in accelerating approval times. The COVID-19 pandemic positively stimulated global preparedness for serious pandemics.
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.