Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033771›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

Confidence interval estimation for vaccine efficacy against COVID-19.

Qinyu Wei, Peng Wang, Ping Yin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Qinyu WeiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Peng WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Ping YinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article focuses on the construction of a confidence interval for vaccine efficacy against contagious coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in a fixed number of events design. Five different approaches are presented, and their performance is investigated in terms of the two-sided coverage probability, non-coverage probability at the lower tail, and expected confidence interval width. Furthermore, the effect of under-sensitivity of diagnosis tests on vaccine efficacy estimation was evaluated. Except for the exact conditional method, the non-coverage probability of the remaining methods may exceed the nominal significance level, e.g., 5%, even for a large number of total confirmed COVID-19 cases. The narrower confidence interval width from the Bayesian, approximate Poisson, and mid-P methods are on the cost of increased instability of coverage probability. When the sensitivity of diagnosis test in the vaccine group is lower than that in the placebo group, the reported vaccine efficacy tends to be overly optimistic. The exact conditional method is preferable to other methods in COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials when the total number of cases reaches 60; otherwise, mid-p method can be used to obtain a narrower interval width.

Indexed as

COVID-19Bayes TheoremConfidence IntervalsCOVID-19 VaccinesHumansVaccine EfficacyCOVID-19 Vaccinescoverage probabilityCOVID-19fixed number of events designunder-sensitivityvaccine efficacy

Identifiers

PMID36033771
PMCPMC9411791

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.