ArticleFarmaceuticos comunitarios2023
[Pharmacovigilance of vaccines against COVID-19 in community pharmacies. Results after the second dose and comparison between both].
Article in Farmaceuticos comunitarios, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Pharmacovigilance of vaccines against COVID-19 in community pharmacies. Results after the second dose and comparison between both].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Detection and tracing of suspicious adverse reactions (ARs) in community pharmacies after the second of COVID-19 vaccine dose. Comparison between doses. Methods: Design: prospective observational study. Subjects: Vaccinated against COVID-19, of legal age, who consent to participate. Variables: Number and percentage of participants with ARs. Number, type and frequency of ARs. Impact on their daily life. Relations between variables.Approved by the Galician Ethical Committee of Research with medicines. Results: 693 participants with the 2nd dose, 63.6% women. Age 56.8 years. 312 (45.0%) vaccinated, 49.4% women and 37.3% men (p<0.0001), reported at least one AR: 43.9% with Comirnaty®, 37.7% with Vaxzevria®, 63.0% with Spikevax®.There were 972 ARs, 75.2% in women and 24.8% in men (p<0.0001). Mean 1.4/vaccinated (maximum 11). The most prevalent AR: pain at injection site 197 (28.4%), tiredness/fatigue 141 (20.3%), myalgia 112 (16.2%), headache 95 (13.7%), fever 84 (12.1%).51 participants with ARs needed professional help: 10 from the doctor, 6 in the emergency room, 3 in hospitals (1 referral), 33 in the pharmacy. 70 (15.1%) were prevented from their daily activity. 201 Ars from vaccinated persons were reported.Number of people vaccinated with ARs and the number of ARs were less with the 2nd dose (p<0.05).Inverse relationship (p<0.05) between "age" and "number of vaccinated with ARs", "need for professional care" and "prevented daily activity". Conclusions: The number of vaccinated participants with ARs and their number was also high with the second dose, although lower than with the first. Women and younger people are predictive of increased risk of AR after vaccination against COVID-19.
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.