MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210519409 · doi:10.2196/36482

Reported Adverse Events Following the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine in Jordan

2022· article· en· W4210519409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Areej Hamed Shoubaki, Ashraf Aqel, Mahmoud Yacoub, Majed Asad

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectmyalgiaVaccinationPediatricsMisinformationPharmacovigilanceInternal medicineSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The expediency in producing and approving vaccines for the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. Regrettably, this fomented public distrust and misinformation about vaccination. The Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine was the first to be approved for mass use after phase 3 clinical trials affirmed its safety and efficacy. Vaccine safety monitoring is ongoing. Objective This study aims to describe reported adverse events following immunization with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine among first recipients in Jordan. Methods A retrospective descriptive study was conducted on data extracted from the Ministry of Health’s database for the National Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System from January to May 2021. The frequency of adverse events was compared between the first and second doses and across age groups, gender, and comorbidities. The chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. Results In total 1874 individuals who received both doses of the vaccine were studied. The mean age was 68 years, with a 2:1 male to female ratio and 73% with comorbidities. About two-thirds (68%) of recipients reported side effects after the first dose, 54.3% after the second, and 53.3% after both. Most common side effects following each and both doses were pain at the injection site (32%), fatigue (16%), and headache (8%), followed by fever, myalgia, and arthralgia. Overall, reported side effects increased 1.4 times after the second dose mostly for systemic side effects. Significantly, more females reported side effects than males, while those with comorbidities reported comparatively fewer side effects (52.2%) than the medically free (59%). Further, 72.5% of recipients aged 55 years or younger reported side effects compared to 50% of older recipients. No anaphylactic reactions were reported. Severe side effects were rare and self-limiting, including tachycardia (n=4), shortness of breath (n=28), and lower limb paresthesia (n=6). Conclusions The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine has proven to be safe and well tolerated among vulnerable recipients with comorbidities. Continuous adverse event surveillance and follow-up are recommended.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedings→Same topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research→French-language works237,207→