The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 100 million people globally within the first year of the pandemic. With a death toll surpassing 500,000 in the United States alone, containing the pandemic is predicated on achieving herd immunity on a global scale. This implies that at least 70-80 % of the population must achieve active immunity against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), either as a result of a previous COVID-19 infection or by vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. In December 2020, the first two vaccines were approved by the FDA through emergency use authorization in the United States. These vaccines are based on the mRNA vaccine platform and were developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna. Published safety and efficacy trials reported high efficacy rates of 94-95 % after two interval doses, in conjunction with limited side effects and a low rate of adverse reactions. The rapid pace of vaccine development and the uncertainty of potential long-term adverse effects raised some level of hesitation against mRNA vaccines in the global community. A successful vaccination campaign is contingent on widespread access to the vaccine under appropriate storage conditions, deployment of a sufficient number of vaccinators, and the willingness of the population to be vaccinated. Thus, it is important to clarify the objective data related to vaccine safety, including known side effects and potential adverse reactions. The present review was designed to provide an update on the current state of science related to the safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines.

No abstract

Following publication of the original article [1], it was noticed that the published version of this article has contained incorrect title. The correct title is "The safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines: a review". The original article has been corrected.

No abstract

Background: Dermatology residency programs are considerably varied in regard to their resident research requirements and resources. The authors examined the availability of 12 key resident research-related criteria in 30 ACGME dermatology residency programs in the United States. Objective: To assess the degree to which dermatology residency programs require and support their new physician graduates in scholarly research. Methods: This cross-sectional study employed a 12-item survey administered online that was informed and created by literature search, expert feedback, and a thorough review and revision process. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the differences in programs’ policies and structure around resident research. Results: Thirty out of 114 PDs (26%) responded to the survey. We found that while most programs had publication and QI project requirements for residents, the majority did not have required research rotations, research electives, or a formal mentorship program. Thus, in spite of a growing need for new physician–scientists coupled with the various benefits associated with conducting research during residency training, considerable hurdles dissuade new physician graduates from pursuing careers in clinical research. Conclusions: Our survey findings supply timely, objective data on dermatology resident research requirements across the country. Medical schools, residency programs, and the ACGME/ AMA may all find our results valuable in further enhancing, evolving, and systematizing dermatology residency policies and provisions.