ArticlePharmaceutical statistics
New, Shorter Small-Sample Intervals for Vaccine Efficacy.
Article in Pharmaceutical statistics. 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.
- New, Shorter Small-Sample Intervals for Vaccine Efficacy.Pharmaceutical statisticsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this work we illustrate a method to improve estimation of Vaccine Efficacy (VE), a vastly employed measure of effect in vaccine clinical research, with small and medium sample sizes. We introduce a comprehensive Bayesian approach that improves upon existing methodologies, explicitly considering patient recruitment processes to inform parameter estimation. In particular-in contrast to most methods currently used-in our proposed methodology the total number of cases as well as the censored surveillance times are seen as informative statistics, with underlying distributions which are used to derive the full likelihood. It turns out that our model depends on first and second moments of the surveillance times regardless of the recruitment process and, for finite sample sizes, it improves on the maximum likelihood method, which depends only on the first moment. The methodology is validated through extensive numerical simulations, demonstrating substantial improvements in parameter interval estimation across diverse scenarios and under multiple recruitment plans, when the number of events-and roughly the sample sizes-are small to medium. For large sample sizes, our method is equivalent to maximum likelihood. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations are needed and can be conducted very efficiently, due to an appropriate parameterization.
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.