ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Estimating community-wide indirect effects of influenza vaccination: triangulation using mathematical models and bias analysis.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2025. 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.
- Worldwide trends and future projections of fungal skin disease burden: a comprehensive analysis from the Global Burden of Diseases study 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding whether influenza vaccine promotion strategies produce community-wide indirect effects is important for establishing vaccine coverage targets and optimizing vaccine delivery. Empirical epidemiologic studies and mathematical models have been used to estimate indirect effects of vaccines but rarely for the same estimand in the same data set. Using these approaches together could be a powerful tool for triangulation in infectious disease epidemiology because each approach is subject to distinct sources of bias. We triangulated evidence about indirect effects from a school-located influenza vaccination program using 2 approaches: a difference-in-difference (DID) analysis and an age-structured, deterministic, compartmental model. The estimated indirect effect was substantially lower in the mathematical model than in the DID analysis (2.1% [95% Bayesian credible intervals, 0.4%-4.4%] vs 22.3% [7.6%-37.1%]). To explore reasons for differing estimates, we used sensitivity analyses and probabilistic bias analyses. When we constrained model parameters such that projections matched the DID analysis, results only aligned with the DID analysis with substantially lower preexisting immunity among school-age children and older adults. Conversely, DID estimates corrected for potential bias only aligned with mathematical model estimates under differential outcome misclassification. We discuss how triangulation using empirical and mathematical modeling approaches could strengthen future 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.