Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38736468›Full record

ArticleChina CDC weekly2024

Comparison of Statistical Signal Detection Methods in Adverse Events Following Immunization - China, 2011-2015.

Lanfang Xia, Keli Li, Yan Li, Zhijie An, Quanwei Song, Lei Wang, Zundong Yin, Huaqing Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors.

Lanfang XiaNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.
Keli LiNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.
Yan LiNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.
Zhijie AnNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.
Quanwei SongNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.
Lei WangNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.
Zundong YinNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.
Huaqing WangNational Key Laboratory of Intelligent Tracking and Forecasting for Infectious Diseases (NITFID), Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DisproportionalityPerformanceSignal DetectionVaccine Safety

Identifiers

PMID38736468
PMCPMC11082050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.