Cited by 66SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.4 and BA.5

Open access
Tartof, Sara Y, Slezak, Jeff M, Puzniak, Laura, Hong, Vennis, Frankland, Timothy B, Ackerson, Bradley K, Takhar, Harpreet, Ogun, Oluwaseye A +4 more·2022·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00692-2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Eight studies assessed VE of primary series or first booster dose vaccination separately for at least two different Omicron subvariants (six assessed VE of both primary series and booster dose vaccination and two assessed VE of a booster dose only).

    “Eight studies assessed VE of primary series or first booster dose vaccination separately for at least two different Omicron subvariants (six assessed VE of both primary series and booster dose vaccination and two assessed VE of a booster dose only, Tables 1 and 2) [21,24-26,28-33].”

    From Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Of three studies assessing VE against infection/symptomatic disease during both BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 periods, all showed similar VE estimates or estimates with overlapping 95 % confidence intervals against both subvariants.

    “Of three studies assessing VE against infection/symptomatic disease during both BA.2 and BA.4/BA.5 periods, all showed similar VE estimates or estimates with overlapping 95 % confidence intervals against both subvariants [25,26,31-33].”

    From Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The methods and VE table (page not specified in our copy) report BNT162b2 effectiveness against BA.4/5, including outpatient encounters. This paper does not provide BA.2 VE estimates for the same study or compare BA.2 and BA.4/5 estimates or their 95% confidence intervals; it points to a separate previous BA.2 analysis. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Of two studies reporting primary series VE against hospitalization/severe disease against BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5, one reported lower VE against BA.2 and BA.4/5 than BA.1, while the other showed no statistically significant differences.

    “Of two studies reporting primary series VE against hospitalization/severe disease against BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5, one reported lower VE against BA.2 and BA.4/5 than BA.1, while the other showed no statistically significant differences [25,26,31,32].”

    From Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The results and adjusted-effectiveness table report two-dose vaccine effectiveness against BA.4/5-related hospitalisation. This paper does not report a primary-series hospitalisation comparison across BA.1, BA.2, and BA.4/5, or test whether differences between those variants were statistically significant. The copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Among three studies comparing VE against BA.1 and BA.4/5, two showed a lower VE against BA.4/5.

    “Among three studies comparing VE against BA.1 and BA.4/5, two showed a lower VE against BA.4/5 [24-26,31,32].”

    From Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The study description and effectiveness table report BNT162b2 effectiveness against BA.4/5, but provide no BA.1 effectiveness estimates for comparison. The introduction mentions lower neutralisation of BA.4/5 than BA.1, which is not a comparison of vaccine effectiveness. A search for a BA.1-versus-BA.4/5 effectiveness comparison found none in our copy; it also does not establish the claim's count of three studies, two with lower effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the one VE study that provided data on prior infection, the percentage of people infected between BA.1/2 and BA.4/5 periods increased more among unvaccinated persons (from 15% to 39%) than among vaccinated persons (from 14% to 25%).

    “In the one VE study that did provide data on prior infection, the percentage of people infected between the BA.1/2 and BA.4/5 periods increased more among unvaccinated persons (from 15 % to 39 %) than among vaccinated persons (from 14 % to 25 %) [31,32].”

    From Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization (2023) · cites this paper as [32]

    The paper’s discussion says natural immunity could not be sufficiently measured and raises undocumented BA.1/BA.2 infections as a possible source of bias. Searches for prior-infection data by vaccination status and the claimed percentages found no passage reporting a 15% to 39% increase among unvaccinated people or a 14% to 25% increase among vaccinated people. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 4 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]Our World in Data SARS-CoV-2 sequences by Variant, Mar 1, 2021 2022 Oxford Martin School University of Oxford https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-variants-bar?time=earliest&country=CAN~BWA~ESP~ZAF~AUS~GBR~USA~DEU~ITA~BEL~FRA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tartof, S. Y., Slezak, J. M., Puzniak, L., Hong, V., Frankland, T. B., Ackerson, B. K., Takhar, H., Ogun, O. A., Simmons, S., Zamparo, J. M., Jodar, L., & McLaughlin, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Tartof, Sara Y
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
1663-1665
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4307399948
Cited by
66
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 7
FWCI
7.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2023-03-01)
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer Inc Boulder
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
Keywords
BNT162b2, Omicron variant, BA.4, BA.5, vaccine effectiveness, spike protein mutations, L452R, receptor binding domain, immune evasion, neutralizing antibodies, COVID-19 pandemic
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Vaccine Efficacy, BNT162 Vaccine, Antibodies, Viral, Humans, Neutralization Tests, Antibodies, Neutralizing

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