Cited by 47SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Real-World Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines against Infection, Symptomatic and Severe COVID-19 Disease Caused by the Omicron Variant (B.1.1.529)

Open access
Mohammed, Hassen, Pham-Tran, Dan Duy, Yeoh, Zi Yi Michelle, Wang, Bing, McMillan, Mark, Andraweera, Prabha H., Marshall, Helen S.·2023·Vaccines

Abstract

Real-world data on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is limited. This systematic review aimed to investigate the real-world effectiveness and durability of protection conferred by primary course and booster vaccines against confirmed Omicron infection, and severe outcomes. We systematically searched literature up to 1 August 2022. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to estimate the pooled vaccine effectiveness (VE). Overall, 28 studies were included representing 11 million individuals. The pooled VE against Omicron infection was 20.4% (95%CI: 12.1–28.7%) and 23.4% (95%CI: 13.5–33.3%) against symptomatic infection with variation based on vaccine type and age groups. VE sharply declined from 28.1% (95%CI: 19.1–37.1%) at three months to 3.9% (95%CI: −24.8–32.7%) at six months. Similar trends were observed for symptomatic Omicron infection. A booster dose restored protection against Omicron infection up to 51.1% (95%CI: 43.8–58.3%) and 57.3% (95%CI: 54.0–60.5%) against symptomatic infection within three months; however, this waned to 32.8% (95%CI: 16.8–48.7%) within six months. VE against severe Omicron infection following the primary course was 63.6% (95%CI: 57.5–69.7%) at three months, decreased to 49% (95%CI: 35.7–63.4%) within six months, and increased to 86% after the first or second booster dose.

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/vaccines11020224

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.

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?

  • For the booster, this review's VE against Omicron infection at 3 months was higher than both Wu et al. and Mohammed et al. (58% versus 43% and 57%).

    “For the booster, our VE against Omicron infection at 3 months was higher than both studies (58% versus 43% and 57%).”

    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 [12]

    The Results (§3.2.4) give booster VE against Omicron infection within three months as 51.2%, not 57%. The approximately 57% figure applies to symptomatic infection, a different outcome (Abstract; §3.2.5). (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    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.”

    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 [18]

    The Results (§3.2.6–3.2.7) assess the magnitude and duration of first-booster protection and report fourth-dose effectiveness for infection, symptomatic infection, and severe outcomes. The fourth-dose estimates cover only approximately seven days, with no effectiveness data for other time periods; the sublineage analysis (§3.5) concerns the first booster, not the fourth. Thus this review leaves the claimed comprehensive fourth-dose assessment incomplete, but it does not support the broader suggestion that published reviews had not assessed booster protection across these outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent review reported that a booster dose of mRNA vaccines restored protection against Omicron infection up to 51% and up to 57% against symptomatic infection within 3 months, declining to 33% within 6 months.

    “These findings are broadly consistent with a recent review that reported that a booster dose of mRNA vaccines restored protection against Omicron infection up to 51% and up to 57% against symptomatic infection within 3 months; however, this declined to 33% within 6 months.18”

    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 [18]

    The Abstract reports approximately 51% protection against Omicron infection, 57% against symptomatic infection within three months, and 33% against symptomatic infection within six months after a booster. Results §§3.2.4–3.2.5 identify the three-month mRNA estimates, but the 33% six-month estimate pools vaccine regimens; the paper does not establish that figure specifically for mRNA boosters. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [12]

    Results §3.1 lists 12 studies from the USA, four from Canada and two from Qatar, compared with eight from European countries. This supports the broad geographic pattern for this review, but its included-study list contains no study from Israel, and it does not establish the pattern across existing reviews generally. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Their studies were conducted earlier, at a time when some boosters were only administered to the priority group such as elderly, and they did not exclude these studies.

    “Their studies were conducted earlier, at a time when some boosters were only administered to the priority group such as elderly, and they did not exclude these studies.”

    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 [12]

    Results §3.1 reports that the meta-analysis included studies of older adults and booster doses; Methods §2.3 says booster follow-up was shorter because boosters had been introduced more recently. The paper does not say that boosters were available only to priority groups when those studies were conducted, so that explanation is unsupported. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 41 · Cited by 47

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [10]Lind M.L. Robertson A.J. Silva J. Warner F. Coppi A.C. Price N. Duckwall C. Sosensky P. Di Giuseppe E.C. Borg R. Effectiveness of Primary and Booster COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination against Omicron Variant SARS-CoV-2 Infection in People with a Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection medRxiv 2022 10.1101/2022.04.19.22274056 PMC9714718 36454733 · DOI
  2. [16]Aromataris E. Fernandez R. Godfrey C.M. Holly C. Khalil H. Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 2015 13 132 140 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055 26360830 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [17]Adams K. Rhoads J.P. Surie D. Gaglani M. Ginde A.A. McNeal T. Ghamande S. Huynh D. Talbot H.K. Casey J.D. Vaccine effectiveness of primary series and booster doses against omicron variant covid-19-associated hospitalization in the united states medRxiv 2022 2022.2006.2009.22276228 10.1101/2022.06.09.22276228 · DOI
  4. [19]Buchan S.A. Nguyen L. Wilson S.E. Kitchen S.A. Kwong J.C. Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against Omicron and Delta outcomes in adolescents medRxiv 2022 10.1101/2022.04.07.22273319 35706105 · DOI
  5. [21]Carazo S. Skowronski D.M. Brisson M. Barkati S. Sauvageau C. Brousseau N. Gilca R. Fafard J. Talbot D. Ouakki M. Protection against Omicron BA.2 reinfection conferred by primary Omicron or pre-Omicron infection with and without mRNA vaccination medRxiv 2022 10.1101/2022.06.23.22276824 PMC9491856 36152671 · DOI
  6. [26]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 of, and effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against, COVID-19 from omicron, delta, and alpha SARS-CoV-2 variants in the United States: Prospective observational study BMJ 2022 376 e069761 10.1136/bmj-2021-069761 35264324 PMC8905308 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [35]Young-Xu Y. Zwain G.M. Izurieta H.S. Korves C. Powell E.I. Smith J. Balajee 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
  8. [37]Montez-Rath M.E. Garcia P. Han J. Cadden L. Hunsader P. Morgan C. Kerschmann R. Beyer P. Dittrich M. Block G.A. SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron surge among patients receiving dialysis: The role of circulating receptor-binding domain antibodies and vaccine doses medRxiv 2022 10.1681/ASN.2022040504 PMC9528334 35973733 · DOI
  9. [43]Arashiro T. Arima Y. Muraoka H. Sato A. Oba K. Uehara Y. Arioka H. Yanai H. Kuramochi J. Ihara G. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta-dominant and Omicron-dominant periods in Japan: A multi-center prospective case-control study (FASCINATE study) Clin. Infect. Dis. Off. Publ. Infect. Dis. Soc. Am. 2022 10.1093/cid/ciac635 PMC9384625 35918782 · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Mohammed, H., Pham-Tran, D. D., Yeoh, Z. Y. M., Wang, B., McMillan, M., Andraweera, P. H., & Marshall, H. S.
Affiliations
  • Women's and Children's Health Network (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Mohammed, Hassen
Venue
Vaccines
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-01-19
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
224
ISSN
2076-393X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4317435600
Cited by
47
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Vaccines (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
COVID-19 vaccines, Omicron variant, vaccine effectiveness, real-world effectiveness, booster vaccination, waning immunity, symptomatic infection, severe COVID-19

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