ArticleEpidemiology and infection2020
Bias correction methods for test-negative designs in the presence of misclassification.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statistical methods for estimating the protective effects of immune markers using test-negative designs.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Use of the test-negative design to estimate the protective effect of a scalar immune measure: a simulation analysis.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Power and sample size considerations for test-negative design with bias correction: a case study on the world first malaria vaccine.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Impact of unequal testing on vaccine effectiveness estimates across two study designs: a simulation study.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Combined multiplex panel test results are a poor estimate of disease prevalence without adjustment for test error.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Estimating the number of probable new SARS-CoV-2 infections among tested subjects from the number of confirmed cases.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Bias assessment of a test-negative design study of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness used in national policymaking.Nature communications · 2023Article
- RANDOMIZATION INFERENCE FOR CLUSTER-RANDOMIZED TEST-NEGATIVE DESIGNS WITH APPLICATION TO DENGUE STUDIES: UNBIASED ESTIMATION, PARTIAL COMPLIANCE, AND STEPPED-WEDGE DESIGN.The annals of applied statistics · 2023Article
- Characterization of Rotavirus Infection in Hospitalized Children under 5 with Acute Gastroenteritis 5 Years after Introducing the Rotavirus Vaccines in South Korea.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Theoretical Framework for Retrospective Studies of the Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2021Review
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
The test-negative design (TND) has become a standard approach for vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. However, previous studies suggested that it may be more vulnerable than other designs to misclassification of disease outcome caused by imperfect diagnostic tests. This could be a particular limitation in VE studies where simple tests (e.g. rapid influenza diagnostic tests) are used for logistical convenience. To address this issue, we derived a mathematical representation of the TND with imperfect tests, then developed a bias correction framework for possible misclassification. TND studies usually include multiple covariates other than vaccine history to adjust for potential confounders; our methods can also address multivariate analyses and be easily coupled with existing estimation tools. We validated the performance of these methods using simulations of common scenarios for vaccine efficacy and were able to obtain unbiased estimates in a variety of parameter settings.
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.