ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Confidence interval estimation for vaccine efficacy against COVID-19.
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.
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.
- Effectiveness, immunogenicity and safety of monovalent DS-5670a and bivalent DS-5670a/b SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: results from two randomized, active-comparator, non-inferiority trials.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- New, Shorter Small-Sample Intervals for Vaccine Efficacy.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.