IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0260733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Author

Listed:
  • Steven Kwasi Korang
  • Elena von Rohden
  • Areti Angeliki Veroniki
  • Giok Ong
  • Owen Ngalamika
  • Faiza Siddiqui
  • Sophie Juul
  • Emil Eik Nielsen
  • Joshua Buron Feinberg
  • Johanne Juul Petersen
  • Christian Legart
  • Afoke Kokogho
  • Mathias Maagaard
  • Sarah Klingenberg
  • Lehana Thabane
  • Ariel Bardach
  • Agustín Ciapponi
  • Allan Randrup Thomsen
  • Janus C Jakobsen
  • Christian Gluud

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. Methods and findings: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, −5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven Kwasi Korang & Elena von Rohden & Areti Angeliki Veroniki & Giok Ong & Owen Ngalamika & Faiza Siddiqui & Sophie Juul & Emil Eik Nielsen & Joshua Buron Feinberg & Johanne Juul Petersen & Christi, 2022. "Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0260733
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260733
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0260733&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0260733?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Julian H Elliott & Tari Turner & Ornella Clavisi & James Thomas & Julian P T Higgins & Chris Mavergames & Russell L Gruen, 2014. "Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-6, February.
    2. Ian R. White, 2015. "Network meta-analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 15(4), pages 951-985, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manh-Toan Ho & Ngoc-Thang B. Le & Manh-Tung Ho & Quan-Hoang Vuong, 2022. "A bibliometric review on development economics research in Vietnam from 2008 to 2020," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(5), pages 2939-2969, October.
    2. Guillaume Cabanac & Theodora Oikonomidi & Isabelle Boutron, 2021. "Day-to-day discovery of preprint–publication links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5285-5304, June.
    3. Maurizio Sajeva & Marjo Maidell & Jonne Kotta, 2020. "A Participatory Geospatial Toolkit for Science Integration and Knowledge Transfer Informing SDGs Based Governance and Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Linda C. Smith, 2024. "Reviews and Reviewing: Approaches to Research Synthesis. An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(3), pages 245-267, March.
    5. Radoslaw Panczak & Elin Charles-Edwards & Jonathan Corcoran, 2020. "Estimating temporary populations: a systematic review of the empirical literature," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-10, June.
    6. Giammarco Alderotti & Daniele Vignoli & Michela Baccini & Anna Matysiak, 2019. "Employment Uncertainty and Fertility: A Network Meta-Analysis of European Research Findings," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2019_06, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    7. Sheila Keay & Zvonimir Poljak & Mackenzie Klapwyk & Annette O’Connor & Robert M Friendship & Terri L O’Sullivan & Jan M Sargeant, 2020. "Influenza A virus vaccine research conducted in swine from 1990 to May 2018: A scoping review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-27, July.
    8. Chao Zhang & Jiancheng Guan, 2017. "How to identify metaknowledge trends and features in a certain research field? Evidences from innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1177-1197, November.
    9. Andres Carvallo & Denis Parra & Hans Lobel & Alvaro Soto, 2020. "Automatic document screening of medical literature using word and text embeddings in an active learning setting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 3047-3084, December.
    10. Julia H. Littell & Sarah Young & Therese D. Pigott & M. Antonia Biggs & Trine Munk‐Olsen & Julia R. Steinberg, 2024. "PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), June.
    11. Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2022. "Transforming evidence for policy: do we have the evidence generation house in order?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-5, December.
    12. Ho, Manh-Toan, 2020. "The rise of research on development economics in Vietnam: Analyses and implications for the public and policymakers from SSHPA 2008-2020 dataset," Thesis Commons msy6e_v1, Center for Open Science.
    13. Ruth Stewart & Harsha Dayal & Laurenz Langer & Carina van Rooyen, 2019. "The evidence ecosystem in South Africa: growing resilience and institutionalisation of evidence use," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, December.
    14. Marion Schmidt & Wolfgang Kircheis & Arno Simons & Martin Potthast & Benno Stein, 2023. "A diachronic perspective on citation latency in Wikipedia articles on CRISPR/Cas-9: an exploratory case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3649-3673, June.
    15. Ho, Manh-Toan, 2020. "The rise of research on development economics in Vietnam: Analyses and implications for the public and policymakers from SSHPA 2008-2020 dataset," Thesis Commons msy6e, Center for Open Science.
    16. Chunhu Shi & Jo C Dumville & Nicky Cullum, 2018. "Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-29, February.
    17. Gheorghe-Gavrilă Hognogi & Ana-Maria Pop, 2024. "Something old, new, and borrowed. Rise of the systematic reviews," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5797-5803, September.
    18. , Aisdl, 2020. "The rise of research on development economics in Vietnam: Analyses and implications for the public and policymakers from SSHPA 2008-2020 dataset," OSF Preprints 9nbyr, Center for Open Science.
    19. Michael Sobel & David Madigan & Wei Wang, 2017. "Causal Inference for Meta-Analysis and Multi-Level Data Structures, with Application to Randomized Studies of Vioxx," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(2), pages 459-474, June.
    20. Alice Freiberg & Melanie Schubert & Karla Romero Starke & Janice Hegewald & Andreas Seidler, 2021. "A Rapid Review on the Influence of COVID-19 Lockdown and Quarantine Measures on Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors in the General Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-46, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0260733. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.