Effectiveness of mRNA vaccine against Omicron-related infections in the real world: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the currently available mRNA vaccines and boosters for the Omicron variant. METHODS We searched for literature published on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and preprint servers (medRxiv and bioRxiv) from January 1, 2020 to June 20, 2022. The pooled effect estimate was calculated by the random-effects model. RESULTS We selected 34 eligible studies in the meta-analysis from 4336 records. For the two-dose vaccinated group, the mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 34.74%, 36% and 63.80% against any Omicron infection, symptomatic infection and severe infection, respectively. For the three-dose vaccinated group, the mRNA VE was 59.80%, 57.47% and 87.22% against any infection, symptomatic infection and severe infection. For the three-dose vaccinated group, the relative mRNA VE was 34.74 %, 37.36% and 63.80% against any infection, symptomatic infection and severe infection. Six months after the two-dose vaccination, VE with any infection, symptomatic infection, and severe infection decreased to 33.4%, 16.79%, and 60.43%. Three months after the three-dose vaccination, VE for any infection and severe infection decreased to 55.39% and 73.39%. CONCLUSIONS Two-dose mRNA vaccines failed to provide sufficient protection against any Omicron infection and symptomatic infection, while three-dose mRNA vaccines continued to provide effective protection after three months.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
None of the published systematic reviews have assessed the magnitude and duration of protection conferred by booster doses of mRNA vaccines, particularly for the fourth dose, for a comprehensive range of COVID-19 outcomes caused by the Omicron subvariant and its sublineages.
“however, none have assessed the magnitude and duration of protection conferred by booster doses of mRNA vaccines, particularly for the fourth dose, for a comprehensive range of COVID-19 outcomes caused by the Omicron subvariant and its sublineages.”
From Protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
Recent systematic review and meta-analyses reported that the third dose mRNA vaccines provided additional protection against the Omicron subvariant compared with the primary series or no vaccination, but the effectiveness waned over time.
“Similar to our findings, recent systematic review and meta-analyses20–22 reported that the third dose mRNA vaccines provided additional protection against the Omicron subvariant compared with the primary series or no vaccination, however, the effectiveness waned over time.”
From Protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
Several systematic reviews of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, with or without meta-analyses, have been published.
“Several systematic reviews of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, with or without meta-analyses, have been published11 17–22”
From Protection of the third-dose and fourth-dose mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariant: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [20]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 53 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Guo, K., Ni, P., Chang, S., Jin, Y., Duan, G., & Zhang, R.
- Affiliations
- Zhengzhou University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Zhang, Rongguang
- Venue
- American Journal of Infection Control
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-09
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1049-1055
- ISSN
- 0196-6553 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4321350493
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 0.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Infection Control (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (82160634)
- Natural Science Foundation of Hainan Province (820CXTD438)
- Hainan Medical University
- 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
- mRNA vaccines, Omicron variant, vaccine effectiveness, booster vaccination, SARS-CoV-2, symptomatic infection, serious infections, waning immunity, real-world effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- mRNA Vaccines, Humans, Immunization, Secondary, RNA, Messenger, Vaccination
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