ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Development and application of the vaccine reporting quality score to evaluate the vaccine adverse event reporting system.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Ensuring the documentation quality of spontaneous reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is important for signal detection, yet targeted tools for evaluating vaccine-specific reporting quality remain lacking. This study proposes the Vaccine Reporting Quality Score (VRQS)-a transparent, exploratory evaluation system-and applies it to a large-scale VAERS dataset. Methods: The preliminary VRQS aggregates 13 items into two primary domains: Completeness (items 1-10) and Clinical Informativeness (items 11-13), using equal weighting as an initial exploratory index. Using the VAERS 2025 dataset, we established a strict 1-to-1 patient case unit of analysis (N = 40,285 unique case reports) to evaluate demographic, administrative, and clinical density. Multivariable linear and ordinal logistic regressions were executed using independent case characteristics, with all overlapping score components removed Results: The mean overall quality score was 9.04 ± 1.96, with 57.54% of unique reports falling into a medium-quality tier (scores 8-10). Product identifiers, such as vaccine type (97.92%), were highly prevalent, whereas informative laboratory data were present in only 16.18% of records. Distinct, descriptive documentation profiles emerged: spontaneous records displayed high completeness but low informativeness, whereas professional entries and serious adverse events (SAEs) featured dense clinical metrics alongside missing administrative checkfields. In re-specified, non-circular multivariable models, complex clinical factors such as pre-existing allergies (b=0.832, p<0.001) and concurrent medications (b=0.463, p<0.001) were independently associated with higher quality score. Conclusion: The proposed VRQS framework demonstrates that administrative documentation density does not inherently correlate with clinical informativeness. Rather than acting as a validated tool for causality assessment, the VRQS provides a transparent, preliminary approach for report prioritization and screening pending formal external validation against global benchmarks.
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.