Cited by 30SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy

Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Open access
Pratama, Nando Reza, Wafa, Ifan Ali, Budi, David Setyo, Sutanto, Henry, Asmarawati, Tri Pudy, Barlian Effendi, Gema, Wungu, Citrawati Dyah Kencono·2022·Vaccines

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Vaccine effectiveness (VE) and the urgency of booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant need evaluation. A systematic search was conducted from 1–6 April, 2022. VE difference (VED) estimates were assessed using random-effects and meta-regression analyses were performed for evaluating VE over time. Compared to full dose, booster dose of overall vaccines provided better protection against any and severe Omicron infections within 3 months (p < 0.001), and within 3 months or more in any, severe, and symptomatic infections (p < 0.001). From meta-regression analysis of overall vaccines, the full-dose VE against any and symptomatic Omicron infections reduced per month by 2.45% and 5.5%, respectively; whereas booster dose effectiveness against any and symptomatic Omicron infections reduced per month by 1.79% and 1.14%, respectively. The VE estimates of booster dose provide excellent protection against symptomatic infection compared to full dose. The VE estimates of Ad26.COV2.S, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCov-19, and mRNA-1273 against Omicron infection are generally moderate, despite the VE estimates declining over time.

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 · 10.3390/vaccines10122180

Cites

73 of 74 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 [21]

    The Results (§3.3, page unavailable) report higher effectiveness for booster doses than for the primary series against Omicron, including in mRNA-vaccine analyses. The Abstract reports declining booster-effectiveness estimates over time, but the Discussion (§4, page unavailable) says the estimated reductions for booster doses were statistically insignificant. The claim presents waning effectiveness more definitively than this source supports. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [31]Lauring A.S. Tenforde M.W. Chappell J.D. Gaglani M. Ginde A.A. McNeal T. Ghamande S. Douin D.J. Talbot H.K. Casey J.D. 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. [37]Young-Xu Y. Zwain G.M. Izurieta H.S. Korves C. Powell E.I. Smith J. Balajee MPH A.S. Holodniy M. Beenhouwer D.O. Rodriguez-Barradas M.C. Effectiveness of MRNA COVID-19 Booster Vaccines against Omicron and Delta Variants among US Veterans medRxiv 2022 10.1101/2022.01.15.22269360 PMC9352567 35922100 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pratama, N. R., Wafa, I. A., Budi, D. S., Sutanto, H., Asmarawati, T. P., Barlian Effendi, G., & Wungu, C. D. K.
Affiliations
  • Universitas Airlangga (ID)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya 60115, Indonesia
Corresponding author
Wungu, Citrawati Dyah Kencono
Venue
Vaccines
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-12-19
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
2180
ISSN
2076-393X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4311884377
Cited by
30
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 2
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vaccines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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, waning vaccine effectiveness, symptomatic infection, serious infections, Ad26.COV2-S, BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, time since 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