Correction: Boikos et al. Co-Administration of BNT162b2 COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccines in Adults: A Global Systematic Review. Vaccines 2025, 13, 381
Constantina Boikos, Kassandra Schaible, Solange Nunez-Gonzalez, Verna Welch, Tianyan Hu, Moe Hein Kyaw, Laura Elizabeth Choi, Joanna Kamar, Henry Goebe, John McLaughlin
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsInfluenza Virus Research Studies · Respiratory viral infections research · SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 4. The data presented in the Figure did not correspond to the data as presented in Appendix A, which impacted the ranges presented in the associated text in Section 3.5 “Safety/Reactogenicity of Same-day Co-administration”, paragraphs 2–4. The text, Figure 4, and cited references have been corrected below.
The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph in Section 3.5, “…and BNT162b2 booster alone ranged from 49% [20] to 52% [36]”, should be corrected to “and BNT162b2 booster alone ranged from 49% [20] to 64% [22]”.
The 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph in Section 3.5, “…BNT162b2 booster followed by SIV later ranged from 33% [26] to 94% [34], and BNT162b2 booster alone ranged from 27% [20] to 82% [26]”, should be corrected to “BNT162b2 booster followed by SIV later ranged from 50% [26] to 82% [34], and BNT162b2 booster alone ranged from 27% [20] to 58.9% [22]”.
The 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph in Section 3.5, “…BNT162b2 booster followed by SIV later ranged from 50% [26] to 82% [34], and BNT162b2 booster alone ranged from 47% [20] to 97.7% [26]” should be corrected to “…SIV followed by BNT162b2 booster later ranged from 29% [35] to 56% [29] and BNT162b2 booster alone ranged from 71% [19] to 97.7% [31]”.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.