ReviewInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2022
Methods to account for measured and unmeasured confounders in influenza relative vaccine effectiveness studies: A brief review of the literature.
Review in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmeasured confounding and misclassification in studies estimating vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death using electronic health records (EHRs): an evaluation of a multi-country European retrospective cohort study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Methods to account for measured and unmeasured confounders in influenza relative vaccine effectiveness studies: A brief review of the literature.Influenza and other respiratory viruses · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observational seasonal influenza relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) studies employ a variety of statistical methods to account for confounding and biases. To better understand the range of methods employed and implications for policy, we conducted a brief literature review. Across 37 included rVE studies, 10 different types of statistical methods were identified, and only eight studies reported methods to detect residual confounding, highlighting the heterogeneous state of the literature. To improve the comparability and credibility of future rVE research, researchers should clearly explain methods and design choices and implement methods to detect and quantify residual confounding.
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.