Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30833155›Full record

ArticleVaccine2019

Bias of influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates from test-negative studies conducted during an influenza pandemic.

Kylie E C Ainslie, Michael Haber, Walter A Orenstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vaccine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kylie E C AinslieDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30322, USA; MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK. Electronic address: k.ainslie@imperial.ac.uk.
Michael HaberDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Walter A OrensteinDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Emory University, 1462 Clifton Rd., Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.

Funding

Study Designs for Estimating the Effectiveness of Vaccination Against InfluenzaR01AI110474 · NIAID · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI HABER, MICHAEL J · 2014 to 2016
$858k
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI110474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Test-negative (TN) studies have become the most widely used study design for the estimation of influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) and are easily incorporated into existing influenza surveillance networks. We seek to determine the bias of TN-based VE estimates during a pandemic using a dynamic probability model. The model is used to evaluate and compare the bias of VE estimates under various sources of bias when vaccination occurs after the beginning of an outbreak, such as during a pandemic. The model includes two covariates (health status and health awareness), which may affect the probabilities of vaccination, developing influenza and non-influenza acute respiratory illness (ARI), and seeking medical care. Specifically, we evaluate the bias of VE estimates when (1) vaccination affects the probability of developing a non-influenza ARI; (2) vaccination affects the probability of seeking medical care; (3) a covariate (e.g. health status) is related to both the probabilities of vaccination and developing an ARI; and (4) a covariate (e.g. health awareness) is related to both the probabilities of vaccination and of seeking medical care. We considered two outcomes against which the vaccine is supposed to protect: symptomatic influenza and medically-attended influenza. When vaccination begins during an outbreak, we found that the effect of delayed onset of vaccination is unpredictable. VE estimates from TN studies were biased regardless of the source of bias present. However, if the core assumption of the TN design is satisfied, that is, if vaccination does not affect the probability of non-influenza ARI, then TN-based VE estimates against medically-attended influenza will only suffer from small (<0.05) to moderate bias (≥0.05 and <0.10). These results suggest that if sources of bias listed above are ruled out, TN studies are a valid study design for the estimation of VE during a pandemic.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesModels, TheoreticalOutcome Assessment, Health CareVaccinationInfluenza VaccinesBiasInfluenzaPandemicTest-negativeVaccine effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID30833155
PMCPMC6449847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.