A committee of experts reviewed hundreds of scientific research papers to make conclusions about the causal relationships between COVID-19 vaccines and specific serious health conditions.

The report was requested by the federal Health Resources and Services Administration Division of Injury Compensation Programs (DICP), which houses the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program. DICP uses reports from the National Academies as an important scientific contribution to its compensation decisions. This report includes research published before mid-October 2023; future research will bring more clarity to the conclusions as researchers continue to study these important vaccines.

The National Academies committee also investigated the causal relationships between intramuscular vaccine administration and shoulder injuries.

Learn more about Shoulder Injuries from Intramuscular Administration of Vaccines

accent

Categories of Causation

These definitions of causation describe the degrees of certainty that a condition has a causal relationship to a vaccine. The committee adopted the categories and definitions of causation used by previous National Academies committees. The conclusions are asymmetric. A conclusion that there is no causal relationship can never be as certain as a conclusion that there is a causal relationship.

Read more about how the committee assessed causality in Chapter 1

  • Evidence establishes a causal relationship

    The totality of the evidence suggests that vaccination can cause this harm. Further research is unlikely to lead to a different conclusion.

  • Evidence favors acceptance of a causal relationship

    The totality of the evidence suggests that vaccination might cause this harm, but meaningful uncertainty remains. Studies that better minimize bias and confounding, and studies that estimate effects more precisely, could lead to a different conclusion.

  • Evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relations

    The available evidence is too limited (e.g., few studies in humans, biased, imprecise) or inconsistent to draw meaningful conclusions in support of or against causality. Future research could lead to a different conclusion. This conclusion also applies to situations in which no studies were identified.

  • Evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship

    The totality of the evidence suggests that vaccination does not cause this harm, but meaningful uncertainty remains. The committee acknowledges that individual causal effects are difficult to ascertain and the limitations of applying population average effects to draw conclusions about the causes of specific events in individual people. For example, it is possible that both vaccination and disease cause certain harms. Thus, (1) an event could be more common in an unvaccinated than a vaccinated population and (2) some of the events in the vaccinated population could be caused by vaccination. Research demonstrating a clear mechanism of action, or research demonstrating increased risk among vaccinated people compared with unvaccinated people, could lead to a different conclusion.

Conclusions by Adverse Effect, Vaccine, or Causal Category

Select a vaccine, and/or an adverse effect, and/or a causal category to view conclusions on evidence linking each of the four COVID vaccines to each of the adverse effects and their level of causation.

Learn more about the vaccines

Learn More