COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among immunocompromised populations: a targeted literature review of real-world studies

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.12.29.21268511: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    RandomizationSince there was only one reviewer, random selection and inter-rater reliability scores (e.g., kappa) were not determined. 2.3.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Based on the above, a targeted search was performed using PubMed and the preprint servers, medRxiv and Khub, to identify real-world studies that assessed COVID-19 VE in IC populations between December 2020 and September 30, 2021 (inclusive).
    PubMed
    suggested: (PubMed, RRID:SCR_004846)

    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:
    Although our approach of including preprints for this targeted literature review strengthens the comprehensiveness of this review, we acknowledge the potential limitations in the reproducibility of this review and the quality of the collected evidence base. Moreover, of the 10 included studies, study designs, follow-up periods after full vaccination, IC definitions and IC populations, methods of computing VE, and adjustment for confounders significantly varied across these real-world studies. Hence, a comparison of study findings or a meta-analysis estimating the pooled VE for outcomes of interest was considered unfeasible. As discussed earlier, the most notable inconsistency across the studies summarized in this review, was the substantial variability in the definitions of IC populations. In this context, the COVID-19 VE estimates across these studies should be interpreted cautiously. Additionally, the reviewed studies had limited follow-up after vaccination ranging from 7 days to 6.5 months. Four studies by Tenforde et al. [19], Polinski et al. [21], Whitaker et al. [26], and Chemaitelly et al. [27] included VE analyses during time periods of Delta variant predominance; however, only Tenforde et al. [19] reported, albeit in a figure only, mRNA VE in the IC during March to May (Alpha variant predominance) and June to July (Delta variant emerging as predominant) 2021. The study period in Tenforde et al. [19] went through July 2021, which covered only the early period of Delta...

    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.


    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.