MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310054435 · doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02663-z

Risk factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness identified from 290 cross-country observational studies until February 2022: a meta-analysis and meta-regression

2022· review· en· W4310054435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marek Petráš, Roman Máčalík, D Janovská, Alexander M. Čelko, Jana Dáňová, Eliška Selinger, Jonáš Doleček, Sylva Neradová, Martina Franklová, Pavel Dlouhý, Jozef Rosina, Ivana Králová Lesná

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Funderslékařská fakulta Univerzity KarlovyMinisterstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské RepublikyUniverzita Karlova v Praze
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyVaccinationMeta-analysisMeta-regressionMEDLINEInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Observational studies made it possible to assess the impact of risk factors on the long-term effectiveness of mRNA and adenoviral vector (AdV) vaccines against COVID-19. METHODS: A computerized literature search was undertaken using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and MedRxiv databases to identify eligible studies, with no language restrictions, published up to 28 February 2022. Eligible were observational studies assessing vaccine effectiveness (VE) by disease severity with reference groups of unvaccinated participants or participants immunized with one, two, or three vaccine doses. Our study was carried out in compliance with the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The risk of study bias was identified using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The GRADE guidelines were applied to assess the strength of evidence for the primary outcome. The synthesis was conducted using a meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: Out of a total of 14,155 publications, 290 studies were included. Early VE of full vaccination against COVID-19 of any symptomatology and severity decreased from 96% (95% CI, 95-96%) for mRNA and from 86% (95% CI, 83-89%) for AdV vaccines to 67% for both vaccine types in the last 2 months of 2021. A similar 1-year decline from 98 to 86% was found for severe COVID-19 after full immunization with mRNA, but not with AdV vaccines providing persistent 82-87% effectiveness. Variant-reduced VE was only associated with Omicron regardless of disease severity, vaccine type, or vaccination completeness. The level of protection was reduced in participants aged >65 years, with a comorbidity or those in long-term care or residential homes independently of the number of doses received. The booster effect of the third mRNA dose was unclear because incompletely restored effectiveness, regardless of disease severity, declined within a short-term interval of 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: Full vaccination provided an early high, yet waning level of protection against COVID-19 of any severity with a strong impact on the high-risk population. Moreover, the potential risk of new antigenically distinct variants should not be underestimated, and any future immunization strategy should include variant-updated vaccines.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.082
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.441
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.075 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MedicineSame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207