Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35296878›Full record

ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2023

Vaccine efficacy at a point in time.

Dean A Follmann, Michael P Fay

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2023. 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  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

2 authors.

Dean A FollmannBiostatistics Research Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
Michael P FayBiostatistics Research Branch, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 5601 Fishers Lane, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8643-9625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccine trials are generally designed to assess efficacy on clinical disease. The vaccine effect on infection, while important both as a proxy for transmission and to describe a vaccine's entire effects, requires frequent (e.g., twice a week) longitudinal sampling to capture all infections. Such sampling may not always be feasible. A logistically easy approach is to collect a sample to test for infection at a regularly scheduled visit. Such point or cross-sectional sampling does not permit estimation of classic vaccine efficacy on infection, as long duration infections are sampled with higher probability. Building on work by Rinta-Kokko and others (2009) and Lipsitch and Kahn (2021), we evaluate proxies of the vaccine effect on transmission at a point in time; the vaccine efficacy on prevalent infection and on prevalent viral load, VE$_{\rm PI}$ and VE$_{\rm PVL}$, respectively. Longer infections with higher viral loads should have more transmission potential and prevalent vaccine efficacy naturally captures this aspect. We demonstrate how these parameters obtain from an underlying proportional hazards model for infection and allow for waning efficacy on infection, duration, and viral load. We estimate these parameters based on regression models with either repeated cross-sectional sampling or frequent longitudinal sampling. We evaluate the methods by simulation and analyze a phase III vaccine trial with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cross-sectional sampling for subclinical infection.

Indexed as

Vaccine EfficacyVaccinesComputer SimulationCross-Sectional StudiesHumansVaccinesCOVID-19Cross-sectionInfectious diseasePrevalent study

Identifiers

PMID35296878
PMCPMC10544797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.