Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32914292›Full record

SynthesisDrug safety2020

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Vaccines. Part I: A Systematic Review to Identify and Describe Studies About Quantitative Benefit-Risk Models Applied to Vaccines.

Hugo Arlegui, Kaatje Bollaerts, Francesco Salvo, Vincent Bauchau, Gaëlle Nachbaur, Bernard Bégaud, Nicolas Praet

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Safety of Streptococcus pyogenes Vaccines: Anticipating and Overcoming Challenges for Clinical Trials and Post-Marketing Monitoring.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Hugo ArleguiUniversity of Bordeaux, UMR1219, 33000, Bordeaux, France. hugo.arlegui@gmail.com.
Kaatje BollaertsP95 Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology Services, 3001, Leuven, Belgium.
Francesco SalvoUniversity of Bordeaux, UMR1219, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Vincent BauchauGSK, 1300, Wavre, Belgium.
Gaëlle NachbaurGSK, 23, rue François Jacob, 92500, Rueil-Malmaison, France.
Bernard BégaudUniversity of Bordeaux, UMR1219, 33000, Bordeaux, France.
Nicolas PraetGSK, 1300, Wavre, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUnderstanding the balance between the benefits and risks of vaccination is essential to ensure informed and adequate public health decision making. Quantitative benefit-risk models (qBRm) represent useful tools to help decision makers with supporting benefit-risk assessment throughout the lifecycle of a medical product. However, few initiatives have been launched to harmonise qBRm approaches, specifically for vaccines.

objectivesThe aim of this paper was to identify publications about qBRm applied to vaccines through a systematic literature review, and to describe their characteristics.

methodsMedline, Scopus and Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge databases were searched to identify articles in English, published from database inceptions up to December 2019. The search strategy included the combination of three key concepts: 'benefit-risk', 'modelling' and 'vaccines'. Data extracted included the modelling context and the methodological approaches used.

resultsOf 3172 publications screened, 48 original publications were included. Most of the selected studies were published over the past decade and focused on rotavirus (15), dengue (10) and influenza (6) vaccines. The majority (30) of studies reported analyses related to high-income countries. The methodology of the studies differed, particularly in modelling techniques, benefit-risk measures, and sensitivity analyses. The present work also pointed out a high level of variability in the quality of reporting across studies, with particular regard to input parameters and methodological approaches.

conclusionsThis review provides an extensive list of qBRm applied to vaccines. Discrepancies across studies were identified during our review. While the number of published qBRm studies is increasing, no reporting guidance for qBRm applied to vaccines is currently available. This may affect decision makers' confidence in the results and their benefit-risk assessment(s); therefore, the development of such reporting guidance is highly needed.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlModels, BiologicalHumansRisk AssessmentVaccinesVaccines

Identifiers

PMID32914292
PMCPMC7575467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.