Postvaccination SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Healthcare workers (HCWs) remain on the front line of the battle against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) infection and are among the highest groups at risk of infection during this raging pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the incidence of postvaccination SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among vaccinated HCWs. We searched multiple databases from inception through August 2021 to identify studies that reported on the incidence of postvaccination SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among HCWs. Meta‐analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions of COVID‐19 infection in partially/fully vaccinated as well as unvaccinated individuals. Eighteen studies with 228 873 HCWs were included in the final analysis. The total number of partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and unvaccinated HCWs were 132 922, 155 673, and 17 505, respectively. Overall pooled proportion of COVID‐19 infections among partially/fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–3.5). Among partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs, pooled proportion of COVID‐19 infections was 2.3% (CI 1.2–4.4), 1.3% (95% CI 0.6–2.9), and 10.1% (95% CI 4.5–19.5), respectively. Our analysis shows the risk of COVID‐19 infection in both partially and fully vaccinated HCWs remains exceedingly low when compared to unvaccinated individuals. There remains an urgent need for all frontline HCWs to be vaccinated against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.04.21264542: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Cell Line Authentication Authentication: We assessed publication bias, qualitatively, by visual inspection of funnel plot and quantitatively, by the Egger test. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources A systematic and detailed search was run in August 2021 in Ovid EBM Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, Ovid Embase (1974+), Ovid Medline (1946+ including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), Scopus (1970+), Web of Science (1975+) and Google Scholar. Google Scholarsuggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)An example search … SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.04.21264542: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Cell Line Authentication Authentication: We assessed publication bias, qualitatively, by visual inspection of funnel plot and quantitatively, by the Egger test. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources A systematic and detailed search was run in August 2021 in Ovid EBM Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, Ovid Embase (1974+), Ovid Medline (1946+ including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), Scopus (1970+), Web of Science (1975+) and Google Scholar. Google Scholarsuggested: (Google Scholar, RRID:SCR_008878)An example search strategy using EMBASE is presented as Supplementary Appendix-1. EMBASEsuggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:However, there are also several limitations to this study, most of which are inherent to any meta-analysis. Firstly, at the time of writing and based on our literature search, a total of 18 studies were included in our analysis. As active research continues to be conducted on COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that we may not have captured all the literature, especially studies not indexed in major databases and/or studies which are published-ahead-of-print. Secondly, we were unable to sub-group our outcomes based on which particular vaccine was administered to the cohort of HCWs. Thirdly, we were unable to determine the mean time to infection occurrence post vaccination, as this information was not consistently reported in the all the studies. There was considerable heterogeneity in our study outcomes likely due to variation in the type of vaccination used and median time to infection occurrence. Lastly, ten of the eighteen studies included in our analysis were retrospective in design which may have resulted in selection bias. Nevertheless, our study is the first in literature to assess the pooled incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care workers around the world. Our results show decreased incidence of COVID-19 infection as well as decreased incidence of hospitalization, ICU admission and deaths, amongst vaccinated HCWs. Our findings support the urgent need for HCWs to consider getting vaccinated against COVID-19.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
