ArticleTanaffos2022
Accounting for Potential Unmeasured Confounding in the Association between Influenza vaccination and COVID-19 Hospitalization: Sensitivity Analysis Using E-value Method.
Article in Tanaffos, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Unmeasured confounding is the primary obstacle to causal inference in observational research. We aimed to illuminate the association between exposure to influenza vaccination (IV) within six months before contracting the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and COVID-19 hospitalization in relation to unmeasured confounding using the E-value method. Materials and Methods: Information about 367 patients, 103 of whom (28.07 %) had received IV, and confounders included sex, age, occupation, cigarette smoking, opium, and comorbidities were collected. We estimated the interest association using the inverse probability weighted (IPW) method. There was no information on some potential unmeasured confounders, such as socioeconomic status. Therefore, we computed E-value as a sensitivity analysis, which is the minimum strength of unmeasured confounding to explain away an exposure-outcome association beyond the measured confounders completely. Results: IPW denoted 1.12 (95% CI: 0.71 to 1.29) times greater risk of COVID-19 hospitalization in patients exposed to IV than in unexposed individuals. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that an E-value (95% CI) of 1.49 (1.90 to 2.15) is required to shift the RR and the corresponding confidence Interval (CI) lower and upper limits toward the null. Moreover, if they had been omitted, the most computed E-values for measured confounders were relatively larger than for unmeasured confounders. Conclusion: According to the context of the measured confounders, if they had been omitted, an E-value of 1.16 to 1.76, a weaker confounding could fully explain away the reported association, suggesting that no relationship exists between IV and COVID-19 hospitalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37025316PMC10073958What 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.