Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40119649›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025

Misclassification of yellow fever vaccination status revealed through hierarchical Bayesian modeling.

Quan M Tran, T Alex Perkins

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Quan M TranDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46530, United States.
T Alex PerkinsDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46530, United States.

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-009125
6 · The paper itself

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

VaccinationVaccination CoverageYellow FeverYellow Fever VaccineBayes TheoremHumansSensitivity and SpecificityYellow Fever VaccineBayesian inferencecase-control studyglobal public healthhierarchical modelinfectious diseasetest-negative designvaccination coverage

Identifiers

PMID40119649
PMCPMC12527270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.