ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Misclassification of yellow fever vaccination status revealed through hierarchical Bayesian modeling.
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.
- Assessing yellow fever outbreak potential and implications for vaccine strategy.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Vaccination coverage estimates are crucial inputs to decisions about investments in vaccination, yet they can be prone to inaccuracies. At the individual level, inaccuracies can be described in terms of the sensitivity and specificity of vaccination status. We estimated these quantities using a hierarchical Bayesian analysis of data from a test-negative study design with reported yellow fever vaccination status as the exposure. Our analysis accounted for the possibility of misclassification of both the exposure and the test at the country level. Across all countries, our median estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of vaccination status were 0.69 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.21-0.98) and 0.70 (95% CrI, 0.21-0.98), respectively. Median estimates at the country level ranged from 0.06 (95% CrI, 0.04-0.09) to 0.96 (95% CrI, 0.94-0.98) for sensitivity and from 0.15 (95% CrI, 0.09-0.23) to 0.98 (95% CrI, 0.90-1.00) for specificity. This suggests that there is substantial misclassification of yellow fever vaccination status in general and extensive variation in misclassification across countries. Taking into account misclassification in vaccination status, we made adjustments to reported vaccination coverage and showed that reported coverage may be significantly underestimated in 10 of 20 countries and significantly overestimated in 5 of 20.
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.