Thread by @VikiLovesFACS

@JoelCraig1 The meta analysis we’re talking about included 23 studies and 117,552 people vaccinated in pregnancy. So if you are looking for evidence, that’s a good place to start.

Link again since sounds like you haven’t looked at it yet… 1/

nature.com/articles/s4146…

@JoelCraig1 Some studies didn’t meet the strict predefined inclusion criteria for SR/MA. So you can find more in my own review, published in @NatRevImmunol in March. At the time we had studies on 185,309 ppl vaccinated in pregnancy with no problems appearing. 2/

nature.com/articles/s4157…

@JoelCraig1 @NatRevImmunol But of course more has been done since March! @UKHSA has updated their data and there’s been a new study published by Rudermann. So the evidence base now stands at 239,760 ppl vaccinated in pregnancy, in formal studies, with no problem appearing. 3/

@JoelCraig1 @NatRevImmunol @UKHSA Citations on the right there if you want to just pop them into Pubmed. But for those who don’t know Pubmed, clickable links to studies with a lay summary of the findings available under q8 of this document… 4/

drive.google.com/file/d/1_wHIYX…

@JoelCraig1 @NatRevImmunol @UKHSA Hope that’s what you were looking for! 5/5