ArticleChina CDC weekly2024
Comparison of Statistical Signal Detection Methods in Adverse Events Following Immunization - China, 2011-2015.
Article in China CDC weekly, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interstitial lung disease associated with antiandrogen agents: a pharmacovigilance study based on FDA adverse event reporting system.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Assessing the risk of adverse drug events from combining aromatase inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibitors using the FAERS and JADER databases.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Adverse events following measles, mumps, rubella and varicella virus vaccine live (PROQUADVirology journal · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance assessment of adverse events following yellow fever vaccination: Disproportionality analysis of VAERS reports, 2015-2025.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Adverse events following 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine (GARDASIL® 9) reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 2015-2024.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- Real-world feasibility of co-administration of RSV, COVID-19, and influenza vaccines in older adults: a VAERS-based analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- A real-world disproportionality analysis of Tenofovir Alafenamide (TAF): Data mining of the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS).PloS one · 2025Article
- Characteristics of adverse events and clinical risks of intravenous immunoglobulin: a pharmacovigilance study based on FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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
Introduction: The current study aims to assess the performance of data mining techniques in detecting safety signals for adverse events following immunization (AEFI) using routinely obtained data in China. Four different methods for detecting vaccine safety signals were evaluated. Methods: The AEFI data from 2011 to 2015 was collected for our study. We analyzed the data using four different methods to detect signals: the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR), Bayesian confidence propagation neural network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS). Each method was evaluated at 1-3 thresholds for positivity. To assess the performance of these methods, we used the published signal rates as gold standards to determine the sensitivity and specificity. Results: The number of identified signals varied from 602 for PRR1 (with a threshold of 1) to 127 for MGPS1. When considering the common reactions as the reference standard, the sensitivity ranged from 0.9% for MGPS1/2 to 38.2% for PRR1/2, and the specificity ranged from 85.2% for PRR1 and ROR1 to 96.7% for MGPS1. When considering the rare reactions as the reference standard, PRR1, PRR2, ROR1, ROR2, and BCPNN exhibited the highest sensitivity (73.3%), while MGPS1 exhibited the highest specificity (96.9%). Discussion: For common reactions, the sensitivities were modest and the specificities were high. For rare reactions, both the sensitivities and specificities were high. Our study provides valuable insights into the selection of signal detection methods and thresholds for AEFI data in China.
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.