ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Harmonizing Case Validation for Vaccine Safety in Real-World Data: The VAC4EU Experience.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Applying standardized Brighton Collaboration (BC) case definitions retrospectively to heterogeneous real-world data (RWD) is challenging due to inconsistent clinical detail and data structures across settings. To address this, the Vaccine Monitoring Collaboration for Europe (VAC4EU) developed a structured validation pipeline that operationalizes BC case definitions for vaccine safety outcomes in RWD in a harmonized, scalable, and reusable manner. Methods: VAC4EU developed a systematic, stepwise approach to validate vaccine safety outcomes. BC case definitions were utilized when available, adapted for RWD as needed, and newly developed for outcomes without an existing BC definition. The approach involves: 1) Critical review and adaptation of BC definition by clinical and RWD experts; 2) Creation of dummy cases based on published reports; 3) Creation of REDCap electronic data collection forms (eDCF) incorporating decision logic to assigned levels of certainty (LOC); 4) Iterative testing of decision logic; and 5) comprehensive training of abstractors with real-time feedback. A dedicated task force assigned reference LOCs for dummy cases. Inter-rater reliability was measured using Fleiss' kappa (κ) by comparing abstractor LOCs to the reference standard. Results: The pipeline was applied to 16 COVID-19 vaccine safety outcomes, of which 13 had existing BC definition. In total, 78 dummy case descriptions were developed across the outcomes for training of abstractors, and 15 REDCap eDCFs were created. Myocarditis and pericarditis shared an eDCF. Across 33 abstractors, 747 dummy case abstractions were completed. Agreement analysis showed 93 discrepancies (12.4%) and moderate overall concordance (κ = 0.55, across all outcomes), with the lowest for thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (κ = -0.05). Conclusion: The VAC4EU validation pipeline provides a standardized framework for training and validating vaccine safety outcome in RWD. By adapting BC case definitions and dedicated training of abstractors, we will reduce variability in outcome validation in post-authorization safety studies.
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.