ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Using double-negative controls to adjust for healthy-user bias in a recombinant zoster vaccine safety study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Cardiovascular Risks of Anticholinergic Versus Non-Anticholinergic Antidepressants: A Target Trial Emulation With Negative Control Correction.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Pharmacoepidemiology unpacked: a roadmap for junior researchers.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Temporal changes in auditory adverse event reporting in the U.S. vaccine adverse event reporting system associated with the COVID-19 vaccine rollout: an interrupted time series analysis with negative control evaluation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Association between joint physical activity and alcohol intake and all-cause mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease: findings from NHANES 2007-2018.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unmeasured confounding is a major concern in many epidemiologic studies that are not randomized. Negative control methods can detect and reduce confounding by leveraging the proxies of the unmeasured confounders, including negative control outcomes (NCOs) and exposures (NCEs). An NCO is presumably unaffected by the exposure of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders; an NCE presumably does not affect the outcome of interest but would be associated with unmeasured confounders. A recently proposed double-negative control method leverages both NCOs and NCEs for unmeasured confounding bias. To demonstrate this relatively new methodology in pharmacoepidemiologic studies, we reanalyzed data from a prior safety study of recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV). The prior study compared risk of safety outcomes of individuals who received the RZV with those of unvaccinated comparators, using logistic regression with propensity score adjustment. We identified NCOs and NCEs that could be used to adjust for unmeasured confounding bias that could arise if RZV recipients are incomparable to the comparators due to unmeasured factors. The double-negative control analysis yielded relative risk estimates slightly closer to 1.0 than those reported previously, providing additional evidence of RZV safety that is less vulnerable to unmeasured confounding.
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.