Differences in Global Scientific Production Between New mRNA and Conventional Vaccines Against COVID-19
Identificadores
URI: https://hdl.handle.net/10481/86199Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Ruiz Fresneda, Miguel Ángel; Ruiz Pérez, Rafael; Ruiz Fresneda, Carlos; Jiménez Contreras, EvaristoEditorial
Springer Nature
Date
2022Referencia bibliográfica
Ruiz-Fresneda, M.A., Ruiz-Pérez, R., Ruiz-Fresneda, C. et al. Differences in Global Scientific Production Between New mRNA and Conventional Vaccines Against COVID-19. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 57054–57066 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21553-8
Abstract
The search for effective vaccines to stop the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented amount of global scientific
production and activity. This study aimed to analyze global scientific production on the different vaccine types (mRNA and
conventional) that were validated for COVID-19 during the years 2020-2021. The scientific production generated on COVID-
19 vaccines during the period 2020-2021 totaled the enormous amount of 20,459 studies published. New mRNA vaccines
clearly showed higher production levels than conventional vaccines (viral and inactivated vectors), with 786 and 350 studies,
respectively. The USA is the undisputed leader in the global production on COVID-19 vaccines, with Israel and Italy also
playing an important role. Among the journals publishing works in this field, the New England Journal of Medicine, the
British Medical Journal, and Vaccines stand out from the rest as the most important. The keyword ‘immunogenicity’ and its
derivatives have been more researched for the new mRNA vaccines, while thrombosis has been more studied for conventional
vaccines. The massive scientific production generated on COVID-19 vaccines in only two years has shown the enormous
gravity of the pandemic and the extreme urgency to find a solution. This high scientific production and the main keywords
found for the mRNA vaccines indicate the great potential that these vaccines have against COVID-19 and future infectious
diseases. Moreover, this study provides valuable information for guiding future research lines and promoting international
collaboration for an effective solution.