Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35392566›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2022

Current Approaches to Vaccine Safety Using Observational Data: A Rationale for the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Events Under Surveillance-for Vaccines) Study Design.

Lana Yh Lai, Faaizah Arshad, Carlos Areia, Thamir M Alshammari, Heba Alghoul, Paula Casajust, Xintong Li, Dalia Dawoud, Fredrik Nyberg, Nicole Pratt and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

15 authors at 11 institutions in 7 countries.

Lana Yh LaiDivision of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Faaizah ArshadDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Carlos AreiaNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Thamir M AlshammariMedication Safety Research Chair, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Heba AlghoulFaculty of Medicine, Islamic University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine.
Paula CasajustReal-World Evidence, Trial Form Support, Barcelona, Spain.
Xintong LiCentre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Dalia DawoudFaculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt.
Fredrik NybergSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Nicole PrattClinical and Health Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
George HripcsakDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Marc A SuchardDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Dani Prieto-AlhambraCentre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Patrick RyanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.
Martijn J SchuemieDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Columbia University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Oxford · GBCairo University · EGIslamic University of Gaza · PSJanssen (United States) · USKing Saud University · SAOffice for National Statistics · GBUniversity of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

DISCOVERING AND APPLYING KNOWLEDGE IN CLINICAL DATABASESR01LM006910 · NLM · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HRIPCSAK, GEORGE M · 2000 to 2023
$10.6M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM006910
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance aims to detect adverse events following immunization in a population. Whether certain methods of surveillance are more precise and unbiased in generating safety signals is unclear. Here, we synthesized information from existing literature to provide an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of epidemiologic and analytical methods used in vaccine monitoring, focusing on cohort, case-control and self-controlled designs. These designs are proposed to be evaluated in the EUMAEUS (Evaluating Use of Methods for Adverse Event Under Surveillance-for vaccines) study because of their widespread use and potential utility. Over the past decades, there have been an increasing number of epidemiological study designs used for vaccine safety surveillance. While traditional cohort and case-control study designs remain widely used, newer, novel designs such as the self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk intervals have been developed. Each study design comes with its strengths and limitations, and the most appropriate study design will depend on availability of resources, access to records, number and distribution of cases, and availability of population coverage data. Several assumptions have to be made while using the various study designs, and while the goal is to mitigate any biases, violations of these assumptions are often still present to varying degrees. In our review, we discussed some of the potential biases (i.e., selection bias, misclassification bias and confounding bias), and ways to mitigate them. While the types of epidemiological study designs are well established, a comprehensive comparison of the analytical aspects (including method evaluation and performance metrics) of these study designs are relatively less well studied. We summarized the literature, reporting on two simulation studies, which compared the detection time, empirical power, error rate and risk estimate bias across the above-mentioned study designs. While these simulation studies provided insights on the analytic performance of each of the study designs, its applicability to real-world data remains unclear. To bridge that gap, we provided the rationale of the EUMAEUS study, with a brief description of the study design; and how the use of real-world multi-database networks can provide insights into better methods evaluation and vaccine safety surveillance.

Indexed as

biasmethods evaluationreal-world datastudy designvaccine safety surveillance

Identifiers

PMID35392566
PMCPMC8980923
OpenAlexW4220913948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.