Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines against Omicron infection and severe events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of test-negative design studies
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: A rapidly growing body was observed of literature evaluating the vaccine effectiveness (VE) against Omicron in test-negative design studies. Methods: We systematically searched papers that evaluated VE of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, Scopus, bioRxiv, and medRxiv published from November 26th, 2021, to June 27th, 2022 (full doses and the first booster), and to January 8th, 2023 (the second booster). The pooled VE against Omicron-associated infection and severe events were estimated. Results: From 2,552 citations identified, 42 articles were included. The first booster provided stronger protection against Omicron than full doses alone, shown by VE estimates of 53.1% (95% CI: 48.0-57.8) vs. 28.6% (95% CI: 18.5-37.4) against infection and 82.5% (95% CI: 77.8-86.2) vs. 57.3% (95% CI: 48.5-64.7) against severe events. The second booster offered strong protection among adults within 60 days of vaccination against infection (VE=53.1%, 95% CI: 48.0-57.8) and severe events (VE=87.3% (95% CI: 75.5-93.4), comparable to the first booster with corresponding VE estimates of 59.9% against infection and 84.8% against severe events. The VE estimates of booster doses against severe events among adults sustained beyond 60 days, 77.6% (95% CI: 69.4-83.6) for first and 85.9% (95% CI: 80.3-89.9) for the second booster. The VE estimates against infection were less sustainable regardless of dose type. Pure mRNA vaccines provided comparable protection to partial mRNA vaccines, but both provided higher protection than non-mRNA vaccines. Conclusions: One or two SARS-CoV-2 booster doses provide considerable protection against Omicron infection and substantial and sustainable protection against Omicron-induced severe clinical outcomes.
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
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?
Existing reviews predominantly include studies from North America, Israel and Qatar, with a small number of studies from European countries.
“Moreover, existing reviews predominantly include studies from North America, Israel and Qatar, with a small number of studies from European countries [7, 8, 12].”
From Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe outcomes in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of European studies published up to 22 January 2024 (2025) · cites this paper as [7]
The Results (Study selection and characteristics) show that most included studies were from the U.S. and Canada, with two from Qatar and fewer from European countries. Israel is not among the countries listed for this review, so the claim is not fully supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe rebound of VE after a booster is consistent with the findings of the systematic review by Song et al. and Mohammed et al.
“The rebound of VE after a booster is consistent with the findings of the systematic review by Song et al. [7] and Mohammed et al. [12].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 34
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [13]Fang Z Monteiro VS Hahn AM Grubaugh ND Lucas C. Chen S. Bivalent mRNA vaccine booster induces robust antibody immunity against Omicron lineages BA2, BA2121, BA275 and BA5. Cell Discov. (2022) 8: 1– 4. 10.1101/2022.07.19.500616 36220819 PMC9552143 · DOI
- [56]Tseng HF Ackerson BK Bruxvoort KJ. Effectiveness of mRNA-1273 against infection and COVID-19 hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron subvariants: BA.1. BA2, BA2121, BA4, and BA5 Nat Commun. (2022) 14: 1– 10. 10.1101/2022.09.30.22280573 36635284 PMC9836332 · DOI
- Authors
- Song, S., Madewell, Z. J., Liu, M., Longini, I. M., & Yang, Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida Health (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Yang, Yang
- Venue
- Frontiers in Public Health
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-06-09
- Volume
- 11
- Pages
- 1195908-1195908
- ISSN
- 2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10289159
- OpenAlex
- W4380087926
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 1.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Keywords
- COVID-19 vaccines, Omicron variant, vaccine effectiveness, booster vaccination, test-negative design, severe COVID-19 outcomes, mRNA vaccines, long-term vaccine protection, COVID-19 prevention, SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, mRNA Vaccines, Adult, Humans, 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