The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Odds of Testing Positive for SARS-CoV-2 Following Receipt of 3 vs 2 Doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Importance: With the evidence of waning immunity of the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), a nationwide third-dose (booster) vaccination campaign was initiated in Israel during August 2021; other countries have begun to administer a booster shot as well. Objective: To evaluate the initial short-term additional benefit of a 3-dose vs a 2-dose regimen against infection of SARS-CoV-2. Design, Setting, and Participants: This preliminary retrospective case-control study used 2 complementary approaches: a test-negative design and a matched case-control design. Participants were included from the national centralized database of Maccabi Healthcare Services, an Israeli healthcare maintenance organization covering 2.5 million members. Data were collected between March 1, 2020, and October 4, 2021, and analyses focused on the period from August 1, 2021, to October 4, 2021, because the booster dose was widely administered from August 1 onward. Exposures: Either 2 doses or 3 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Main Outcomes and Measures: The reduction in the odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test at different time intervals following receipt of the booster dose (0-6, 7-13, 14-20, 21-27, and 28-65 days) compared with receiving only 2 doses. Results: The study population included 306 710 members of Maccabi Healthcare Services who were 40 years and older (55% female) and received either 2 or 3 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine and did not have a positive PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 prior to the start of the follow-up period. During this period, there were 500 232 PCR tests performed, 227 380 among those who received 2 doses and 272 852 among those who received 3 doses, with 14 989 (6.6%) and 4941 (1.8%) positive test results in each group, respectively. Comparing those who received a booster and those who received 2 doses, there was an estimated odds ratio of 0.14 (95% CI, 0.13-0.15) 28 to 65 days following receipt of the booster (86% reduction in the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2). Conclusion and Relevance: Previous studies have demonstrated that vaccine-derived protection against SARS-CoV-2 wanes over time. In this case-control analysis, we showed an association between receipt of the booster dose and a reduction in the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, potentially counteracting waning immunity in the short term. Further monitoring of data from this population is needed to determine the duration of immunity following the booster.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The 7-day cutoff was chosen based on previous research the BNT162b2 vaccine effectivenesss1,11.”
From Waning effectiveness of the third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, as by the outcome period of January 2022 most of Israel’s population had already received the booster, the reference group of those unvaccinated is admittedly prone to bias, as has been discussed in the previous papers11.”
From Waning effectiveness of the third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies have demonstrated that the third dose increases immunogenicity against SARS-CoV-2 as reflected by a rapid and broad immune response to the third BNT162b2 dose7,11.”
From Waning effectiveness of the third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The test-negative design, which does not assume that a lack of a positive test equals a negative test and somewhat adjusts for testing volume, attempts to better mitigate this bias and is the reason we chose this method for this analysis”
From Waning effectiveness of the third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Nonetheless, supporting this design were previous covid-19 studies implementing a test negative design that yielded comparable results to cohort studies on this population,6 11 while presenting diminished bias in the short term outcomes of vaccinee effectiveness.”
In the citing paper
“The lack of pre-defined PCR testing protocols implemented in the study population also presented a challenge. This limitation has been discussed extensively in previous covid-19 observational studies and could lead to potential biases relating to healthcare seeking behaviour.6 11 38 39”
In the citing paper
“A second limitation stems from the varying dominance of different SARS-CoV-2 variants over time. The period after fourth dose vaccination in Israel has been dominated by the omicron variant, which makes assessing the relative effectiveness of the fourth dose against other covid-19 variants difficult—a well recognised limitation of real world analyses during this pandemic.6 36 37”
In the citing paper
“Therefore, apart from potential scarcity of data in comparing to unvaccinated individuals, this eligible yet unvaccinated population in a massively campaigned environment such as Israel is plausibly different in terms health related behaviour, which could introduce a bias in rendering it the reference group,43 as has been pointed out in previous vaccination studies of Israeli populations measuring”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine
Polack, F. P., Thomas, S. J., Kitchin, N., Absalon, J., Gurtman, A., Lockhart, S., Perez, J. L., Pérez Marc, G., Moreira, E. D., Zerbini, C., et al. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2034577 · Cited by 14,592
Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine
Baden, L. R., El Sahly, H. M., Essink, B., Kotloff, K., Frey, S., Novak, R., Diemert, D., Spector, S. A., Rouphael, N., Creech, C. B., et al. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2035389 · Cited by 10,119
BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Mass Vaccination Setting
Dagan, N., Barda, N., Kepten, E., Miron, O., Perchik, S., Katz, M. A., Hernán, M. A., Lipsitch, M., Reis, B., & Balicer, R. D. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2101765 · Cited by 2,527
Seow, J., Graham, C., Merrick, B., Acors, S., Pickering, S., Steel, K. J. A., Hemmings, O., O’Byrne, A., Kouphou, N., Galao, R. P., et al. (2020) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-020-00813-8 · Cited by 1,419
Protection of BNT162b2 Vaccine Booster against Covid-19 in Israel
Bar-On, Y. M., Goldberg, Y., Mandel, M., Bodenheimer, O., Freedman, L., Kalkstein, N., Mizrahi, B., Alroy-Preis, S., Ash, N., Milo, R., et al. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2114255 · Cited by 1,169
Coresh, J., Turin, T. C., Matsushita, K., Sang, Y., Ballew, S. H., Appel, L. J., Arima, H., Chadban, S. J., Cirillo, M., Djurdjev, O., et al. (2014) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6634 · Cited by 988
Three Doses of an mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients
Kamar, N., Abravanel, F., Marion, O., Couat, C., Izopet, J., & Bello, A. D. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmc2108861 · Cited by 810
Spike-antibody waning after second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1
Shrotri, M., Navaratnam, A. M. D., Nguyen, V., Byrne, T., Geismar, C., Fragaszy, E., Beale, S., Fong, W. L. E., Patel, P., Kovar, J., et al. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)01642-1 · Cited by 393
Correlation of SARS-CoV-2-breakthrough infections to time-from-vaccine
Mizrahi, B., Lotan, R., Kalkstein, N., Peretz, A., Perez, G., Ben-Tov, A., Chodick, G., Gazit, S., & Patalon, T. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26672-3 · Cited by 261
Self-citationEssebag, V., Platt, R. W., Abrahamowicz, M., & Pilote, L. (2005) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-5 · Cited by 234
The epidemiology of diabetes in a large Israeli HMO
Chodick, G., Heymann, A. D., Shalev, V., & Kokia, E. S. (2003) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1023/b:ejep.0000006635.36802.c8 · Cited by 177
The Effectiveness of the Two-Dose BNT162b2 Vaccine: Analysis of Real-World Data
Chodick, G., Tene, L., Rotem, R. S., Patalon, T., Gazit, S., Ben-Tov, A., Weil, C., Goldshtein, I., Twig, G., Cohen, D., et al. (2022) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciab438 · Cited by 176
Self-citationUnconditional or Conditional Logistic Regression Model for Age-Matched Case–Control Data?
Kuo, C., Duan, Y., & Grady, J. J. (2018) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00057 · Cited by 165
Shalev, V., Chodick, G., Goren, I., Silber, H., Kokia, E. S., & Heymann, A. D. (2010) · International Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.08.002 · Cited by 155
Weitzman, D., Chodick, G., Shalev, V., Grossman, C., & Grossman, E. (2014) · Hypertension · doi:10.1161/hypertensionaha.114.03718 · Cited by 113
Theoretical Framework for Retrospective Studies of the Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines
Lewnard, J. A., Patel, M. M., Jewell, N. P., Verani, J. R., Kobayashi, M., Tenforde, M. W., Dean, N. E., Cowling, B. J., & Lopman, B. A. (2021) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001366 · Cited by 103
Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Pearce, N. E. (2019) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0000000000001088 · Cited by 78
Massa, F., Crémoni, M., Gérard, A. O., Grabsi, H., Rogier, L., Blois, M., Couzin, C., Hassen, N. B., Rouleau, M., Barbosa, S., et al. (2021) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103679 · Cited by 78
Zakeri, R., Bendayan, R., Ashworth, M. J., Bean, D. M., Dodhia, H., Durbaba, S., O’Gallagher, K., Palmer, C., Ćurčin, V., Aitken, E., et al. (2020) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100574 · Cited by 59
Durability of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody Among Residents in a Long-Term Care Community
Ruopp, M. D., Strymish, J. M., Dryjowicz-Burek, J., Creedon, K., & Gupta, K. (2021) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2021.01.066 · Cited by 12
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fiolet, T., Kherabi, Y., MacDonald, C.-J., Ghosn, J., & Peiffer-Smadja, N. (2022) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2021.10.005 · Cited by 911
Barda, N., Dagan, N., Cohen, C., Hernán, M. A., Lipsitch, M., Kohane, I. S., Reis, B. Y., & Balicer, R. D. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02249-2 · Cited by 860
Duration of Protection against Mild and Severe Disease by Covid-19 Vaccines
Andrews, N., Tessier, E., Stowe, J., Gower, C., Kirsebom, F., Simmons, R., Gallagher, E., Thelwall, S., Groves, N., Dabrera, G., et al. (2022) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2115481 · Cited by 807
Homologous and Heterologous Covid-19 Booster Vaccinations
Atmar, R. L., Lyke, K. E., Deming, M. E., Jackson, L. A., Branche, A. R., Sahly, H. M. E., Rostad, C. A., Martin, J. M., Johnston, C., Rupp, R. E., et al. (2022) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2116414 · Cited by 646
Thompson, M. G., Natarajan, K., Irving, S. A., Rowley, E. A., Griggs, E. P., Gaglani, M., Klein, N. P., Grannis, S. J., DeSilva, M. B., Stenehjem, E., et al. (2022) · MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report · doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7104e3 · Cited by 398
Metadata
- Authors
- Patalon, T., Gazit, S., Pitzer, V. E., Prunas, O., Warren, J. L., & Weinberger, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Maccabi Healthcare Services (IL)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Weinberger, Daniel M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2022-02-01
- Volume
- 182
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 179
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8634151
- OpenAlex
- W3216645551
- Cited by
- 141
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 83
- FWCI
- 10.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI137093)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
- Keywords
- BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, COVID-19 booster vaccination, third dose vaccination, COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine waning, test-negative design, matched case-control studies, PCR-confirmed infection, vaccine effectiveness, older adults, Maccabi Healthcare Services, SARS-CoV-2 variants, Omicron variant, Delta variant
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, BNT162 Vaccine, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Incidence, Case-Control Studies, Comparative Effectiveness Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
