ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2026
Can We Compare Adverse Events' Attributable Risk Using a Self-Controlled Case Series Design for Vaccine Safety? A Guillain-Barré Syndrome Use Case.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2026. 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.
- A narrative review of considerations when assessing potential relationships between Guillain-Barré syndrome and vaccines.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEstimating attributable risk (AR) through self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses alone may limit generalizability because SCCS only incorporate vaccinated patients with the outcome (e.g., Guillain-Barré syndrome [GBS]) who may differ from the recommended vaccinee population. We aimed to demonstrate background event incidence rates' impact on vaccine-specific GBS ARs and to standardize ARs across different vaccine studies by applying a generalizable, population-based GBS background rate to better estimate the expected population-level ARs.
methodsWe identified post-licensure SCCS vaccine studies and GBS background rates using US Medicare data via targeted literature review. GBS control period rates from SCCS vaccine studies were extracted or calculated. Population-level ARs were calculated for each vaccine using two published and two hypothetical background GBS rates and the original SCCS-generated incidence rate ratios (IRRs).
resultsPublished vaccine-specific GBS IRRs ranged from 2.02 (95% CI 0.93-4.40) for RSVpreF to 4.96 (95% CI 1.43-17.27) for recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV). Study-specific ARs per 100,000 doses ranged from 0.28 (H1N1) to 0.90 (RSVpreF). Vaccines with lower control period GBS rates had a lower attributable risk for a given IRR. After standardization using external background GBS rates, population-level ARs were higher for vaccines with higher IRRs. For example, when using the H1N1 vaccine control period rate as the GBS background rate for AR calculation, RSVpreF had the lowest AR per 100,000 doses (0.21) and RZV the highest (2.26).
conclusionsAR calculation is dependent on the control period event rate within a given SCCS analysis. ARs derived exclusively from SCCS analyses may lead to incorrect conclusions regarding an adverse event's absolute risk in regulatory communications due to a lack of external validity. Using a representative background rate from the recommended vaccinee population, along with SCCS-derived IRR, offers a more consistent approach to calculate the expected population-level AR and supports vaccine risk-benefit assessments.
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.