ArticleVaccine2019
Bias of influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates from test-negative studies conducted during an influenza pandemic.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between seasonal influenza vaccination and antimicrobial use in Japan from the 2015-16 to 2020-21 seasons: from the VENUS study.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2023Article
- The need for a clinical case definition in test-negative design studies estimating vaccine effectiveness.NPJ vaccines · 2023Article
- Revisiting assumptions in test-negative studies for estimating vaccine effectiveness: the need for a clinical case definition.Research square · 2023Article
- Comparative effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA-based booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections: a time-varying cohort analysis using trial emulation in the Virus Watch community cohort.International journal of epidemiology · 2023Observational
- Association of Influenza Vaccination With SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Associated Hospitalization and Mortality Among Patients Aged 66 Years or Older.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Assessment of the benefits of seasonal influenza vaccination: Elements of a framework to interpret estimates of vaccine effectiveness and support robust decision-making and communication.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2021Review
- Challenges in estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness.Expert review of vaccines · 2019Review
- Effectiveness of repetitive influenza vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection among a cohort of health care workers in Portugal.Porto biomedical journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What 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.