ArticleBiometrics2023
A seasonality-adjusted sequential test for vaccine safety surveillance.
Article in Biometrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-Time Pharmacovigilance: Transforming Population-Based Monitoring of Post-Approval Vaccine Safety Through Rapid Cycle Analysis (RCA)-A Review of the Published Literature.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Post-market active safety monitoring is important for the timely capture of safety signals associated with exposure to a new vaccine or drug. The group sequential analysis is a common method employed in safety surveillance. Specifically, it compares the post-vaccination incidence of adverse event (AE) in a vaccinated population with a pre-specified reference level by sequentially conducting hypothesis testing during the surveillance. When the number of AEs is "too high", a safety signal is identified. If the null hypothesis is never rejected, the vaccine is considered safe. Such an approach does not account for either the variation in determining the reference risk from a control population or the seasonality effect. Furthermore, not rejecting the null could be due to a lack of power and cannot always be interpreted as proof of safety. In this paper, we proposed a new group sequential test procedure fully accounting for both seasonality and variation from the historical controls. More importantly, we proposed to construct a confidence interval for the relative AE risk between the exposed and control groups at the end of the study, which can be used to quantify the safety of the vaccine. The proposed method is illustrated via real-data examples on anaphylaxis and examined by extensive simulation studies.
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.