ArticleHealth science reports2025
Self-Reported Adverse Events Following COVID-19 Vaccination Among Medical Sciences Students After a Symptomatology Training Program: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Accurate and transparent investigation of adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination enhances social trust and confidence in vaccination programs. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs among medical sciences students. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a self-administered survey via Google Forms was conducted to evaluate AEs associated with the AZD1222 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) and BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm) vaccines among medical sciences students. Data were collected following participation in a training program focused on the symptomatology of AEs, which was designed to reduce confirmation bias. Results: A total of 263 medical sciences students from North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran, participated in this study, with data collection occurring from August 8 to September 1, 2021. The median age of the study population was 23 years (IQR: 22-24), with 207 participants being female (78.7%). Following the first dose, the prevalence of AEs was significantly more common in the Oxford-AstraZeneca group compared to the Sinopharm group [OR 12.93 (5.57-30.03), Conclusions: The findings of this study indicated that the prevalence of AEs was higher for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine compared to the Sinopharm vaccine. Further research is necessary to explore the impact of utilizing standardized definitions and common terminology for COVID-19 vaccination-related AEs in ensuring accurate and consistent reporting.
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.