ArticleEpidemiology and infection2026
Risk-of-bias assessment of vaccine effectiveness studies: a scoping review of systematic reviews.
Article in Epidemiology and infection, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Observational vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies provide essential real-world evidence but are prone to bias. Valid synthesis relies on rigorous risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment in systematic reviews of VE studies. Following JBI guidance, we mapped and described RoB assessment methodologies in systematic reviews of VE studies. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science from 1 January 2013 to 17 May 2023 and the grey literature from 1 January 2018 to 15 August 2023. Of 367 identified reviews, 38 lacked any RoB assessment, yielding 203 systematic reviews. Of these, 190 used existing tools (NOS (85/190, 44.7%), ROBINS-I (46/190, 24.2%), and JBI (11/190, 5.8%)) and 13 used an author-developed tool (13/203, 6.4%). Tools were adapted in 16.7% (34/203) of reviews and 7.2% (14/203) used multiple tools. Reviews included 20 (±25.7) observational studies, commonly cohorts (175/203, 86.2%), with COVID-19 (66/203, 32.5%) and seasonal influenza (62/203, 30.5%) frequently studied. VE was reported descriptively in 25.1% (51/203) of reviews, while 74.9% (152/203) provided meta-analyzed estimates primarily based on laboratory-confirmed infection (137/203, 67.5%) and symptomatic disease (130/203, 64.0%). Our findings indicate heterogeneous RoB assessment, reflected by use of different/multiple tools, frequent adaptations, author-developed methods, and absence of RoB assessment, highlighting the need for clearer guidance or tailored tools.
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.