ArticleDrug safety2012
Identifying adverse events of vaccines using a Bayesian method of medically guided information sharing.
Article in Drug safety, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchical Models for Multiple, Rare Outcomes Using Massive Observational Healthcare Databases.Statistical analysis and data mining · 2016Article
- Article
- Terminological challenges in safety surveillance.Drug safety · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe detection of adverse events following immunization (AEFI) fundamentally depends on how these events are classified. Standard methods impose a choice between either grouping similar events together to gain power or splitting them into more specific definitions. We demonstrate a method of medically guided Bayesian information sharing that avoids grouping or splitting the data, and we further combine this with the standard epidemiological tools of stratification and multivariate regression.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the ability of a Bayesian hierarchical model to identify gastrointestinal AEFI in children, and then combine this with testing for effect modification and adjustments for confounding. STUDY
designReporting odds ratios were calculated for each gastrointestinal AEFI and vaccine combination. After testing for effect modification, these were then re-estimated using multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, year and country of report. A medically guided hierarchy of AEFI terms was then derived to allow information sharing in a Bayesian model.
settingAll spontaneous reports of AEFI in children under 18 years of age in the WHO VigiBase™ (Uppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden) before June 2010. Reports with missing age were included in the main analysis in a separate category and excluded in a subsequent sensitivity analysis. EXPOSURES: The 15 most commonly prescribed childhood vaccinations, excluding influenza vaccines.
main outcome measuresAll gastrointestinal AEFI coded by WHO Adverse Reaction Terminology.
resultsA crude analysis identified 132 signals from 655 reported combinations of gastrointestinal AEFI. Adjusting for confounding by age, sex, year of report and country of report, where appropriate, reduced the number of signals identified to 88. The addition of a Bayesian hierarchical model identified four further signals and removed three. Effect modification by age and sex was identified for six vaccines for the outcomes of vomiting, nausea, diarrhoea and salivary gland enlargement.
conclusionThis study demonstrated a sequence of methods for routinely analysing spontaneous report databases that was easily understandable and reproducible. The combination of classical and Bayesian methods in this study help to focus the limited resources for hypothesis testing studies towards adverse events with the strongest support from the data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22136183What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.