ArticlePloS one2024
Reported side-effects following Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine in the north-west province, Iran: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A data-driven machine learning framework to predict side effects of AstraZeneca and sinopharm COVID-19 vaccines.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Adverse events of special interest after vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines: a cohort event monitoring study in Iran.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Self-Reported Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination Among Medical Sciences Students After a Symptomatology Training Program: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Exploring the adverse events of Oxford-AstraZeneca, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 vaccination on Guillain-Barré Syndrome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Preliminary Report of Nationwide COVID-19 Vaccine Compensation in Taiwan.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the vaccination was introduced as a promising tool to control the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, concerns about vaccine-related side effects had grown. Due to the widespread administration of the COVID-19 vaccine worldwide for the first time, it was necessary to evaluate the safety and potential side effects in recipients. This study aims to assess, the incidence of adverse effects following Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccination and identify their related factors. In this cross-sectional survey-based study, 453 volunteers participated, including 235 men and 218 women. The reported adverse reactions from recipients of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccine were collected by using a questionnaire. The findings showed that the incidence of adverse reactions, such as neurological, systematic, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and local symptoms were significantly higher after the first dose compared to the second dose. Systematic symptoms were the most prevalent reported side effects after the first and second dose injection. The demographical study of participants showed that individuals aged 18-34 and females were more prone to present adverse events following vaccination. However, no significant relationship was found between the occurrence of side effects and the recipients' body mass index. Despite the life-saving role of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, it may have some adverse reactions in recipients. The severity and frequency of side effects were different. So, they were dependent on several factors, including gender and age. Altogether, post-vaccination adverse reactions were mild and tolerable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.