ArticleJournal of reproductive immunology2022
Controversies around the statistical presentation of data on mRNA-COVID 19 vaccine safety in pregnant women.
Article in Journal of reproductive immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The work entitled "Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons" published on April 21, 2021, in The New England Journal of Medicine, presented data collected from American surveillance systems and registries. However, problems with an unanimous interpretation of those results appeared in the public debate and citing articles. Some stated that the risk of miscarriage in vaccinated women was similar to historical values reported before the vaccines' approval. The others stated that risk was highly above-normative in women vaccinated during the first and second trimesters. We found several problems with the statistical treatment/interpretation of the originally presented values: a substantial percentage (up to 95.6%) of missing data, an incorrect denominator used for risk estimation, and too short follow-up that disabled the evaluation of the study's endpoint in numerous participants. Eventually, the Authors published a corrigendum on September 8, 2021, and pointed to updated data. Herein, we explain the statistical controversies raised by the original presentation and stress that analyzing the trade-off between knowledge and confusion brought by the release of incomplete results of such a high social interest, should aid in solving the dilemma of whether to publish preliminary data or none.
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.