Cited by 52SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyCOVID-19 epidemiological studies

The Vaccine Efficacy Against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Zou, Yuntao, Huang, Doudou, Jiang, Qian, Guo, Yanglin, Chen, Chider·2022·Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 is a respiratory illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. The most recent variant is Omicron (line B.1.1.529), which was first identified in South Africa in November 2021. The concern with this variant is the ineffectiveness of vaccines currently available. We aim to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines and boosters for the Omicron variant. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from inception to June 5th, 2022. Studies that examined the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against the Omicron variant infection were included. Random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant. Results: A total of 13 studies were included to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine against the Omicron variant, and 11 studies were included to compare the effectiveness between the two-dose and three-dose (booster) vaccinations. Full vaccination (two-dose with or without booster) showed a protective effect against the Omicron variant compared to no vaccination (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.56–0.69), while the effectiveness decreased significantly over 6 months after the last dose. The two-dose vaccination plus booster provided better protection against the Omicron variant compared to the two-dose vaccination without booster (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.52–0.68). Additional analysis was performed for the most commonly used vaccines in the United Staes: BNT162b2(Pfizer) (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52–0.82) and mRNA-1273(Moderna) (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58–0.88) vaccines in the US, which showed similar effectiveness compared to no vaccination. Conclusions: The full dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination effectively reduces infection from the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant; however, the effectiveness wanes over time. The booster vaccine provides additional protection against the Omicron variant.

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 · 10.3389/fpubh.2022.940956

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • 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 [22]

    The Results section reports that three doses provided more protection against Omicron than either two doses or no vaccination, and the Abstract and Discussion report waning effectiveness over time. But the three-dose comparisons pooled several vaccine types; the separate mRNA analysis did not establish that the third dose of an mRNA vaccine specifically provided those comparative benefits or measure its waning over time. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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.”
  • 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”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [14]Lauring AS Tenforde MW Chappell JD Gaglani M Ginde AA McNeal T. Clinical severity and mrna vaccine effectiveness for Omicron, Delta, and Alpha SARS-CoV-2 Variants in the United States: a prospective observational study. MedRxiv. (2022). 10.1101/2022.02.06.22270558 PMC8905308 35264324 · DOI
  2. [26]Andrews N Stowe J Kirsebom F Toffa S Rickeard T Gallagher E. Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) Variant Concern. MedRxiv. (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zou, Y., Huang, D., Jiang, Q., Guo, Y., & Chen, C.
Affiliations
  • Saint Peter's University Hospital (US)
  • Nanjing University (CN)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Chider
Venue
Frontiers in Public Health
Published
2022-07-13
Volume
10
Pages
940956-940956
ISSN
2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285084997
Cited by
52
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 7
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research
  • National Institutes of Health
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
Omicron variant, COVID-19 vaccines, vaccine efficacy, booster vaccination, waning immunity, BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, infection control
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Vaccine Efficacy, BNT162 Vaccine, Humans, Viral Vaccines

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