ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2025
The potential bias introduced into COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies at primary care level due to the availability of SARS-CoV-2 tests in the general population.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Assessment of Vaccine Effectiveness by Coupling Test-negative Design Studies with Survival Models.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Improving Assessment of Vaccine Effectiveness by Coupling Test-Negative Design Studies with Survival Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Identification of the causal odds ratio in test-negative-design studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Does Home COVID-19 Testing Bias COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Estimates?American journal of preventive medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith SARS-CoV-2 self-tests, persons with acute respiratory infections (ARI) can know their COVID-19 status. This may alter their decision to consult a general practitioner (GP), potentially biasing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. We explore bias mechanisms, simulate magnitude, and verify control methods.
methodsWe used directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to illustrate the bias mechanisms. Based on the European primary care VEBIS multicentre test-negative design (TND) study, we simulated populations with varying true VE (20%-60%), proportions of persons with ARI self-testing (10%-30%), effect of COVID-19 vaccination on self-testing (1.5-2.5), and effect of self-test result on GP consultation (0.5-2). We performed 5000 runs per scenario, estimating VE among those consulting a GP. We calculated bias as true VE minus mean simulated VE, unadjusted and adjusted for self-testing, using logistic regression.
resultsDAGs suggested collider stratification bias if vaccination had an effect on self-testing and if self-test results affected GP consultation. Bias was -12% to 18% at 20% true VE, with the most extreme associations and 30% self-testing. With 60% true VE and 10%-20% self-testing, bias was lower. Bias was higher (-18% to 45%) if both positive and negative self-test results affected GP consultation. Adjusting for self-testing removed the bias.
conclusionsSelf-testing may bias COVID-19 VE TND studies in primary care if self-testing is high, particularly with low VE. We recommend primary care TND VE studies collect self-testing information to eliminate potential bias. Observational studies are needed to understand the relationship between vaccination, self-testing, and GP consultation, in these studies' source population.
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.