research paper 2021 pdf

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

HBR’s Most-Read Research Articles of 2021

• Dagny Dukach

A look back at the insights that resonated most with our readers.

What will it take to make work better? Over the past year, HBR has published a wide array of research-backed articles that explore topics ranging from retaining employees to overcoming meeting overload to fostering gender equity in the workplace. In this end-of-year roundup, we share key insights and trends from our most-read research articles of 2021.

As the workplace rapidly transforms in the wake of the pandemic, social movements, and more, a fundamental question remains: How can we ensure we’re making work better — for employees, organizations, and society at large?

• Dagny Dukach is a former associate editor at Harvard Business Review.

Partner Center

Powered by:

Sponsored by:

Find scientific papers by searching here or download the Chrome extension

Unlocking knowledge: your gateway to open access scientific papers and research data, introduction.

In the digital era, the quest for knowledge and scientific discovery is no longer confined to the walls of academia and research institutions. Welcome to [Your Website Name] , a dedicated platform for finding and downloading open access scientific papers and other research data. Our mission is to democratize access to scientific information, making it freely available to researchers, students, and curious minds across the globe.

What is Open Access?

Open Access (OA) refers to the practice of providing unrestricted access via the Internet to peer-reviewed scholarly research. OA content is available to all, without the usual financial or legal barriers. We believe that open access is crucial in fostering a culture of knowledge sharing and collaboration, thereby accelerating innovation and discovery.

Types of Open Access:

• Gold Open Access: Papers are published in open access journals that provide immediate open access to all of their articles.
• Green Open Access (Self-Archiving): Authors publish in any journal and then self-archive a version of the article for free public use in their institutional repository or on a website.
• Hybrid Open Access: Some articles in a subscription journal are made open access upon the payment of an additional charge.

Downloading Resources

• Direct Downloads: Once you find a paper or dataset, download it directly.
• Citation Tools: Easily export citations in various formats to incorporate them into your research.

Open Access

Open access in scientific publishing represents a transformative approach that breaks down traditional barriers to knowledge dissemination. It is a movement dedicated to making scientific research freely available to all, fostering a more inclusive and collaborative scientific community. At its core, open access allows for the unrestricted sharing of research findings, enabling scientists, academicians, and the general public to access and utilize scientific papers without the constraints of subscription fees or licensing restrictions. This paradigm shift in scholarly communication is driven by the belief that knowledge, particularly that which is publicly funded, should be a communal resource, accessible to everyone for the greater good of society.

In the realm of scientific research, open access has numerous advantages. It accelerates the pace of discovery by allowing researchers to build upon existing work without delay, facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas across various fields. This is particularly crucial in addressing global challenges, where rapid and unencumbered access to research can lead to faster solutions. Furthermore, open access democratizes knowledge by making it available to researchers in developing countries who may not have the resources for expensive journal subscriptions, thereby narrowing the research gap between high and low-income countries.

The open access model also aligns with the digital age's ethos of openness and transparency. It enables a more efficient validation and critique process, as a larger audience can scrutinize and contribute to the research. This can lead to higher quality and more reliable scientific work. Moreover, it provides an equal platform for emerging researchers and institutions to share their findings, ensuring that the visibility and impact of research are not confined to those within well-funded, prestigious entities.

However, the transition to open access is not without challenges. The sustainability of publishing models, quality assurance, and equitable distribution of costs are ongoing concerns. Despite these hurdles, the open access movement is gaining momentum, driven by the global scientific community's commitment to an open, accessible, and collaborative future in research. As we move forward, open access stands as a beacon of progress, symbolizing a world where knowledge is a shared and freely accessible asset, driving innovation and societal advancement.

Battilana, Julie, Julie Yen , and Emilie Aguirre. “Placing Both Humans and the Planet at the Core of a Sustainable Economy: On the Need to Prioritize and Empower Workers in Companies.” In G. George et al \(Eds.\), Handbook on the Business of Sustainability: The Organization, Implementation, and Practice of Sustainable Growth . North Hampton, MA: Edward Elgar \(forthcoming\).

Add: Battilana, Julie, Julie Yen, and Emilie Aguirre . “Placing Both Humans and the Planet at the Core of a Sustainable Economy: On the Need to Prioritize and Empower Workers in Companies.” In G. George et al \(Eds.\), Handbook on the Business of Sustainability: The Organization, Implementation, and Practice of Sustainable Growth . North Hampton, MA: Edward Elgar \(forthcoming\).

Please add: Eaglin, F. Christophe r. “Under Pressure: Exploring the Impact of Financial Constraints on Firm Behavio\ r.” February 2021. Eaglin, F. Christopher and Tommy Pan Fang. “Exploring Boundaries: How Firms Choose Informality in Emerging Markets.” April 2021.

Please add: Eaglin, F. Christopher and Tommy Pan Fang. “Exploring Boundaries: How Firms Choose Informality in Emerging M\ arkets.” April 2021.

add Please add: Stoller, Elliot . "Quantification and the Evaluation of Federal Regulations."  Working paper, Ap\ ril 2021.

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2020
• Volume 36 , pages 909–913, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Clara Busse   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0178-1000 1 &
• Ella August   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5151-1036 1 , 2  

280k Accesses

15 Citations

711 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Communicating research findings is an essential step in the research process. Often, peer-reviewed journals are the forum for such communication, yet many researchers are never taught how to write a publishable scientific paper. In this article, we explain the basic structure of a scientific paper and describe the information that should be included in each section. We also identify common pitfalls for each section and recommend strategies to avoid them. Further, we give advice about target journal selection and authorship. In the online resource 1 , we provide an example of a high-quality scientific paper, with annotations identifying the elements we describe in this article.

Similar content being viewed by others

How to Choose the Right Journal

The Point Is…to Publish?

Writing and publishing a scientific paper

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Writing a scientific paper is an important component of the research process, yet researchers often receive little formal training in scientific writing. This is especially true in low-resource settings. In this article, we explain why choosing a target journal is important, give advice about authorship, provide a basic structure for writing each section of a scientific paper, and describe common pitfalls and recommendations for each section. In the online resource 1 , we also include an annotated journal article that identifies the key elements and writing approaches that we detail here. Before you begin your research, make sure you have ethical clearance from all relevant ethical review boards.

Select a Target Journal Early in the Writing Process

We recommend that you select a “target journal” early in the writing process; a “target journal” is the journal to which you plan to submit your paper. Each journal has a set of core readers and you should tailor your writing to this readership. For example, if you plan to submit a manuscript about vaping during pregnancy to a pregnancy-focused journal, you will need to explain what vaping is because readers of this journal may not have a background in this topic. However, if you were to submit that same article to a tobacco journal, you would not need to provide as much background information about vaping.

Information about a journal’s core readership can be found on its website, usually in a section called “About this journal” or something similar. For example, the Journal of Cancer Education presents such information on the “Aims and Scope” page of its website, which can be found here: https://www.springer.com/journal/13187/aims-and-scope .

Peer reviewer guidelines from your target journal are an additional resource that can help you tailor your writing to the journal and provide additional advice about crafting an effective article [ 1 ]. These are not always available, but it is worth a quick web search to find out.

Identify Author Roles Early in the Process

Early in the writing process, identify authors, determine the order of authors, and discuss the responsibilities of each author. Standard author responsibilities have been identified by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [ 2 ]. To set clear expectations about each team member’s responsibilities and prevent errors in communication, we also suggest outlining more detailed roles, such as who will draft each section of the manuscript, write the abstract, submit the paper electronically, serve as corresponding author, and write the cover letter. It is best to formalize this agreement in writing after discussing it, circulating the document to the author team for approval. We suggest creating a title page on which all authors are listed in the agreed-upon order. It may be necessary to adjust authorship roles and order during the development of the paper. If a new author order is agreed upon, be sure to update the title page in the manuscript draft.

In the case where multiple papers will result from a single study, authors should discuss who will author each paper. Additionally, authors should agree on a deadline for each paper and the lead author should take responsibility for producing an initial draft by this deadline.

Structure of the Introduction Section

The introduction section should be approximately three to five paragraphs in length. Look at examples from your target journal to decide the appropriate length. This section should include the elements shown in Fig.  1 . Begin with a general context, narrowing to the specific focus of the paper. Include five main elements: why your research is important, what is already known about the topic, the “gap” or what is not yet known about the topic, why it is important to learn the new information that your research adds, and the specific research aim(s) that your paper addresses. Your research aim should address the gap you identified. Be sure to add enough background information to enable readers to understand your study. Table 1 provides common introduction section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

The main elements of the introduction section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Methods Section

The purpose of the methods section is twofold: to explain how the study was done in enough detail to enable its replication and to provide enough contextual detail to enable readers to understand and interpret the results. In general, the essential elements of a methods section are the following: a description of the setting and participants, the study design and timing, the recruitment and sampling, the data collection process, the dataset, the dependent and independent variables, the covariates, the analytic approach for each research objective, and the ethical approval. The hallmark of an exemplary methods section is the justification of why each method was used. Table 2 provides common methods section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Results Section

The focus of the results section should be associations, or lack thereof, rather than statistical tests. Two considerations should guide your writing here. First, the results should present answers to each part of the research aim. Second, return to the methods section to ensure that the analysis and variables for each result have been explained.

Begin the results section by describing the number of participants in the final sample and details such as the number who were approached to participate, the proportion who were eligible and who enrolled, and the number of participants who dropped out. The next part of the results should describe the participant characteristics. After that, you may organize your results by the aim or by putting the most exciting results first. Do not forget to report your non-significant associations. These are still findings.

Tables and figures capture the reader’s attention and efficiently communicate your main findings [ 3 ]. Each table and figure should have a clear message and should complement, rather than repeat, the text. Tables and figures should communicate all salient details necessary for a reader to understand the findings without consulting the text. Include information on comparisons and tests, as well as information about the sample and timing of the study in the title, legend, or in a footnote. Note that figures are often more visually interesting than tables, so if it is feasible to make a figure, make a figure. To avoid confusing the reader, either avoid abbreviations in tables and figures, or define them in a footnote. Note that there should not be citations in the results section and you should not interpret results here. Table 3 provides common results section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Discussion Section

Opposite the introduction section, the discussion should take the form of a right-side-up triangle beginning with interpretation of your results and moving to general implications (Fig.  2 ). This section typically begins with a restatement of the main findings, which can usually be accomplished with a few carefully-crafted sentences.

Major elements of the discussion section of an original research article. Often, the elements overlap

Next, interpret the meaning or explain the significance of your results, lifting the reader’s gaze from the study’s specific findings to more general applications. Then, compare these study findings with other research. Are these findings in agreement or disagreement with those from other studies? Does this study impart additional nuance to well-accepted theories? Situate your findings within the broader context of scientific literature, then explain the pathways or mechanisms that might give rise to, or explain, the results.

Journals vary in their approach to strengths and limitations sections: some are embedded paragraphs within the discussion section, while some mandate separate section headings. Keep in mind that every study has strengths and limitations. Candidly reporting yours helps readers to correctly interpret your research findings.

The next element of the discussion is a summary of the potential impacts and applications of the research. Should these results be used to optimally design an intervention? Does the work have implications for clinical protocols or public policy? These considerations will help the reader to further grasp the possible impacts of the presented work.

Finally, the discussion should conclude with specific suggestions for future work. Here, you have an opportunity to illuminate specific gaps in the literature that compel further study. Avoid the phrase “future research is necessary” because the recommendation is too general to be helpful to readers. Instead, provide substantive and specific recommendations for future studies. Table 4 provides common discussion section pitfalls and recommendations for addressing them.

Follow the Journal’s Author Guidelines

After you select a target journal, identify the journal’s author guidelines to guide the formatting of your manuscript and references. Author guidelines will often (but not always) include instructions for titles, cover letters, and other components of a manuscript submission. Read the guidelines carefully. If you do not follow the guidelines, your article will be sent back to you.

Finally, do not submit your paper to more than one journal at a time. Even if this is not explicitly stated in the author guidelines of your target journal, it is considered inappropriate and unprofessional.

Your title should invite readers to continue reading beyond the first page [ 4 , 5 ]. It should be informative and interesting. Consider describing the independent and dependent variables, the population and setting, the study design, the timing, and even the main result in your title. Because the focus of the paper can change as you write and revise, we recommend you wait until you have finished writing your paper before composing the title.

Be sure that the title is useful for potential readers searching for your topic. The keywords you select should complement those in your title to maximize the likelihood that a researcher will find your paper through a database search. Avoid using abbreviations in your title unless they are very well known, such as SNP, because it is more likely that someone will use a complete word rather than an abbreviation as a search term to help readers find your paper.

After you have written a complete draft, use the checklist (Fig. 3 ) below to guide your revisions and editing. Additional resources are available on writing the abstract and citing references [ 5 ]. When you feel that your work is ready, ask a trusted colleague or two to read the work and provide informal feedback. The box below provides a checklist that summarizes the key points offered in this article.

Checklist for manuscript quality

Data Availability

Michalek AM (2014) Down the rabbit hole…advice to reviewers. J Cancer Educ 29:4–5

Article   Google Scholar  

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors: who is an author? http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authosrs-and-contributors.html . Accessed 15 January, 2020

Vetto JT (2014) Short and sweet: a short course on concise medical writing. J Cancer Educ 29(1):194–195

Brett M, Kording K (2017) Ten simple rules for structuring papers. PLoS ComputBiol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005619

Lang TA (2017) Writing a better research article. J Public Health Emerg. https://doi.org/10.21037/jphe.2017.11.06

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ella August is grateful to the Sustainable Sciences Institute for mentoring her in training researchers on writing and publishing their research.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, 135 Dauer Dr, 27599, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clara Busse & Ella August

Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2029, USA

Ella August

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ella August .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

(PDF 362 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Busse, C., August, E. How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal. J Canc Educ 36 , 909–913 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Download citation

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01751-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Manuscripts
• Scientific writing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Computer Science
• Computer Security and Reliability
• Cyber Security

Research Paper on Cyber Security

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• I.C.S.COLLEGE OF ARTS COMMERCE AND SCIENCE KHED RATANGIRI

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Fatma Said Kombo

• Leticia Edward Mihayo
• Sagar Jambhorkar
• Sameer Nimkar
• Sanjiv Kumar
• Jay J. Pandya
• Prashant Kharote

• Inas Muthia
• Adityas Widjajarto
• Avon Budiono

• Hussain Alkar

• Hasanur Rahman
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Article Information

eFigure. Examples of spontaneous abortion cases and ongoing pregnancy controls categorized across 4-week surveillance periods

• COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnant and Lactating Women JAMA Viewpoint March 16, 2021 This Viewpoint discusses the need for shared decision-making when counseling pregnant and nursing women about the unstudied benefits and risks COVID-19 vaccination, calling for rigorously designed studies with real-time, proactive data collection to establish evidence as quickly as possible about coronavirus vaccine safety in mothers and their infants. Emily H. Adhikari, MD; Catherine Y. Spong, MD
• Involving Pregnant Individuals in Clinical Research on COVID-19 Vaccines JAMA Viewpoint March 16, 2021 This Viewpoint from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development emphasizes the need to use existing data sources and develop partnerships, infrastructure, and ethical and regulatory standards to generate data about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant individuals. Diana W. Bianchi, MD; Lisa Kaeser, JD; Alison N. Cernich, PhD
• Caring for Pregnant and Postpartum Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic JAMA JAMA Insights March 16, 2021 This JAMA Insights review summarizes the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant and lactating women, its effects on perinatal outcomes, and compiles guidance from the CDC, FDA, and obstetrics-gynecology specialty organizations on the safety of coronavirus vaccines during pregnancy and while breastfeeding. Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS; Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH
• Immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Pregnant and Lactating Women JAMA Original Investigation June 15, 2021 This study assesses the immunogenicity of the current COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in pregnant and lactating women against both the original SARS-CoV-2 USA-WA1/2020 strain as well as against the B.1.1.7 and B.1.351 variants of concern. Ai-ris Y. Collier, MD; Katherine McMahan, MS; Jingyou Yu, PhD; Lisa H. Tostanoski, PhD; Ricardo Aguayo, BS; Jessica Ansel, NP; Abishek Chandrashekar, MS; Shivani Patel, BA; Esther Apraku Bondzie, BA; Daniel Sellers, BS; Julia Barrett, BS; Owen Sanborn, BS; Huahua Wan, MS; Aiquan Chang, BA; Tochi Anioke, BS; Joseph Nkolola, PhD; Connor Bradshaw, BS; Catherine Jacob-Dolan, BS; Jared Feldman, BS; Makda Gebre, MSc; Erica N. Borducchi, PhD; Jinyan Liu, PhD; Aaron G. Schmidt, PhD; Todd Suscovich, PhD; Caitlyn Linde, PhD; Galit Alter, PhD; Michele R. Hacker, ScD; Dan H. Barouch, MD, PhD
• Transposed Column Heads in Table JAMA Correction October 5, 2021

See More About

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Others Also Liked

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn
• CME & MOC

Kharbanda EO , Haapala J , DeSilva M, et al. Spontaneous Abortion Following COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy. JAMA. 2021;326(16):1629–1631. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.15494

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Spontaneous Abortion Following COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy

• 1 HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota
• 2 Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
• 3 Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
• Viewpoint COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnant and Lactating Women Emily H. Adhikari, MD; Catherine Y. Spong, MD JAMA
• Viewpoint Involving Pregnant Individuals in Clinical Research on COVID-19 Vaccines Diana W. Bianchi, MD; Lisa Kaeser, JD; Alison N. Cernich, PhD JAMA
• JAMA Insights Caring for Pregnant and Postpartum Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic Sonja A. Rasmussen, MD, MS; Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH JAMA
• Original Investigation Immunogenicity of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Pregnant and Lactating Women Ai-ris Y. Collier, MD; Katherine McMahan, MS; Jingyou Yu, PhD; Lisa H. Tostanoski, PhD; Ricardo Aguayo, BS; Jessica Ansel, NP; Abishek Chandrashekar, MS; Shivani Patel, BA; Esther Apraku Bondzie, BA; Daniel Sellers, BS; Julia Barrett, BS; Owen Sanborn, BS; Huahua Wan, MS; Aiquan Chang, BA; Tochi Anioke, BS; Joseph Nkolola, PhD; Connor Bradshaw, BS; Catherine Jacob-Dolan, BS; Jared Feldman, BS; Makda Gebre, MSc; Erica N. Borducchi, PhD; Jinyan Liu, PhD; Aaron G. Schmidt, PhD; Todd Suscovich, PhD; Caitlyn Linde, PhD; Galit Alter, PhD; Michele R. Hacker, ScD; Dan H. Barouch, MD, PhD JAMA
• Correction Transposed Column Heads in Table JAMA

COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be associated with severe maternal morbidity. 1 In the United States, 1 COVID-19 vaccine has been approved and 2 have been authorized for use for pregnant women. To date, data on maternal COVID-19 vaccine safety come primarily from passive surveillance, and studies lack an unvaccinated comparison group. 2 , 3 Spontaneous abortion has been identified as a priority outcome in studies of maternal vaccine safety, 4 and concerns regarding risks of spontaneous abortion may be a barrier to vaccination during pregnancy. We present findings from case-control surveillance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The Vaccine Safety Datalink is a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 9 health systems, representing approximately 3% of the US population. 5 We applied a validated pregnancy algorithm, which incorporates diagnostic and procedure codes and electronic health record (EHR) data, to identify and assign gestational ages for spontaneous abortions and ongoing pregnancies. 6 Data from 8 health systems (Kaiser Permanente: Washington, Northwest, Northern California, Southern California, and Colorado; Denver Health; HealthPartners; and Marshfield Clinic, Wisconsin) over seven 4-week surveillance periods from December 15, 2020, through June 28, 2021, were included. Ongoing pregnancies between 6 and 19 weeks’ gestation were identified on the last day of each 4-week surveillance period (index date) and contributed data to 1 or more surveillance periods. Spontaneous abortions were assigned to a 4-week surveillance period based on their outcome date; these spontaneous abortions could have been included in the ongoing pregnancy categories during prior periods (eFigure in the Supplement ). Vaccination data came from EHRs, medical and pharmacy claims, and regional or state immunization information systems.

We analyzed the odds of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in the 28 days prior to spontaneous abortion compared with the odds of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in the 28 days prior to index dates for ongoing pregnancies. Both spontaneous abortions and ongoing pregnancies were assigned to gestational age groups (6-8, 9-13, and 14-19 weeks), surveillance periods, site, maternal age groups (16-24, 25-34, and 35-49 years), number of antenatal visits (≤1 or ≥2), and race and ethnicity. Generalized estimating equations with binomial distribution and logit link were used to account for repeated ongoing pregnancies across surveillance periods. Analyses by manufacturer and gestational age group were also conducted. Analysis was performed using SAS/STAT software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).

This surveillance was approved by the institutional review boards of all participating sites with a waiver of informed consent.

Of 105 446 unique pregnancies, 13 160 spontaneous abortions and 92 286 ongoing pregnancies were identified. Overall, 7.8% of women received 1 or more BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccines; 6.0% received 1 or more mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines; and 0.5% received an Ad26.COV.2.S (Janssen) vaccine during pregnancy and before 20 weeks’ gestation. The proportion of women aged 35 through 49 years with spontaneous abortions was higher (38.7%) than with ongoing pregnancies (22.3%). A COVID-19 vaccine was received within 28 days prior to an index date among 8.0% of ongoing pregnancy periods vs 8.6% of spontaneous abortions ( Table 1 ). Spontaneous abortions did not have an increased odds of exposure to a COVID-19 vaccination in the prior 28 days compared with ongoing pregnancies (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08). Results were consistent for mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 and by gestational age group ( Table 2 ).

Among women with spontaneous abortions, the odds of COVID-19 vaccine exposure were not increased in the prior 28 days compared with women with ongoing pregnancies. Strengths of this surveillance include the availability of a multisite diverse population with robust data capture. Several limitations should be noted. First, gestational age of spontaneous abortions and ongoing pregnancies were not chart confirmed; pregnancy dating may be inaccurate early in pregnancy. Second, although vaccination status was identified using multiple data sources, the COVID-19 vaccine rollout has been complex and some vaccines may have been missed, potentially biasing findings to the null. Third, data on important confounders, such as prior pregnancy history, were not available. Fourth, it was not possible to assess risks specific to the Ad26.COV.2.S vaccine given the small number of exposures. Despite limitations, these data can be used to inform vaccine recommendations and to counsel patients.

Corresponding Author: Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH, HealthPartners Institute, 8170 33rd Ave S, Mail Stop 23301A, Minneapolis, MN 55408 ( [email protected] ).

Accepted for Publication: August 26, 2021.

Published Online: September 8, 2021. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.15494

Correction: This article was corrected on September 10, 2021, to reverse the transposed column heads in Table 1.

Author Contributions: Drs Kharbanda and Vazquez-Benitez had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Kharbanda, DeSilva, Vazquez-Benitez, Lipkind.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kharbanda, Vazquez-Benitez, Lipkind.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Haapala, DeSilva, Vazquez-Benitez, Vesco, Naleway, Lipkind.

Statistical analysis: Haapala, Vazquez-Benitez.

Obtained funding: Kharbanda.

Supervision: Kharbanda, Lipkind

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lipkind reported serving on the Pfizer independent external data monitoring committee for the COVID-19 vaccine. Dr Naleway reported receiving research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated study. Dr Vesco reported receiving research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated study. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by contract 200-2012-53526 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The CDC participated in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC. Mention of a product or company name is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the CDC.

Additional Contributions: From the Vaccine Safety Datalink: We thank Nicola Klein, MD, PhD (Kaiser Permanente Northern California), Matthew Daley, MD (Kaiser Permanente Colorado), Darios Getahun, MD (Kaiser Permanente Southern California), Stephanie Irving, MPH (Kaiser Permanente Northwest), Michael Jackson, PhD (Kaiser Permanente Washington), Joshua Williams, MD, Simon Hambidge, MD, PhD (Denver Health), James Donahue, DVM, PhD (Marshfield Clinic), and Candace Fuller, PhD (Harvard Pilgrim) for providing subject matter expertise, technical assistance, assistance with data collection, and review of the study. We thank Leslie Kuckler, MPH, and Jingyi Zhu, PhD (HealthPartners Institute) for their assistance with data collection. We also thank Eric Weintraub (CDC) and Brad Crane (Kaiser Permanente Northwest) for assistance with data collection and management in addition to administrative and technical support. All persons acknowledged have been compensated by the CDC.

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts