Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 866

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of an Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Chile

Open access
Jara, Alejandro, Undurraga, Eduardo A., González, Cecilia, Paredes, Fabio, Fontecilla, Tomás, Jara, Gonzalo, Pizarro, Alejandra, Acevedo, Johanna, Leo, Katherinne, Leon, Francisco, Sans, Carlos, Leighton, Paulina, Suárez, Pamela, García-Escorza, Heriberto, Araos, Rafael·2021·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mass vaccination campaigns to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) are occurring in many countries; estimates of vaccine effectiveness are urgently needed to support decision making. A countrywide mass vaccination campaign with the use of an inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine (CoronaVac) was conducted in Chile starting on February 2, 2021. METHODS: We used a prospective national cohort, including participants 16 years of age or older who were affiliated with the public national health care system, to assess the effectiveness of the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine with regard to preventing Covid-19 and related hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and death. We estimated hazard ratios using the extension of the Cox proportional-hazards model, accounting for time-varying vaccination status. We estimated the change in the hazard ratio associated with partial immunization (≥14 days after receipt of the first dose and before receipt of the second dose) and full immunization (≥14 days after receipt of the second dose). Vaccine effectiveness was estimated with adjustment for individual demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The study was conducted from February 2 through May 1, 2021, and the cohort included approximately 10.2 million persons. Among persons who were fully immunized, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness was 65.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.2 to 66.6) for the prevention of Covid-19 and 87.5% (95% CI, 86.7 to 88.2) for the prevention of hospitalization, 90.3% (95% CI, 89.1 to 91.4) for the prevention of ICU admission, and 86.3% (95% CI, 84.5 to 87.9) for the prevention of Covid-19-related death. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectively prevented Covid-19, including severe disease and death, a finding that is consistent with results of phase 2 trials of the vaccine. (Funded by Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo and others.).

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa2107715

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 866

Metadata

Authors
Jara, A., Undurraga, E. A., González, C., Paredes, F., Fontecilla, T., Jara, G., Pizarro, A., Acevedo, J., Leo, K., Leon, F., Sans, C., Leighton, P., Suárez, P., García-Escorza, H., & Araos, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2021-09-02
Volume
385
Issue
10
Pages
875-884
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W3179399516
Cited by
866
References
13
FWCI
59.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of an Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Chile. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa2107715
The paper
Jara, A., Undurraga, E. A., González, C., Paredes, F., Fontecilla, T., Jara, G., Pizarro, A., Acevedo, J., Leo, K., Leon, F., Sans, C., Leighton, P., Suárez, P., García-Escorza, H., & Araos, R. (2021). Effectiveness of an Inactivated SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Chile. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2107715

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.