• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

The use of test-negative controls to monitor vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review of methodology

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Epidemiology. 2019 Oct 10. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001116. [Epub ahead of print] [h=1]The use of test-negative controls to monitor vaccine effectiveness: a systematic review of methodology.[/h]
Chua H, Feng S, Lewnard JA, Sullivan SG, Blyth CC, Lipsitch M[SUP]1[/SUP], Cowling BJ.
[h=3]Author information[/h] 1 . Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] The test-negative design is an increasingly popular approach for estimating vaccine effectiveness (VE) due to its efficiency. This review aims to examine published test-negative design studies of VE and to explore similarities and differences in methodological choices for different diseases and vaccines.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, and Medline, for studies reporting the effectiveness of any vaccines using a test-negative design. We screened titles and abstracts, and reviewed full texts to identify relevant articles. We created a standardized form for each included article to extract information on the pathogen of interest, vaccine(s) being evaluated, study setting, clinical case definition, choices of cases and controls, and statistical approaches used to estimate VE.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] We identified a total of 348 articles, including studies on VE against influenza virus (n=253), rotavirus (n=48), pneumococcus (n=24), and nine other pathogens. Clinical case definitions used to enroll patients were similar by pathogens of interest but the sets of symptoms that defined them varied substantially. Controls could be those testing negative for the pathogen of interest, those testing positive for non-vaccine type of the pathogen of interest, or a subset of those testing positive for alternative pathogens. Most studies controlled for age, calendar time, and comorbidities.
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] Our review highlights similarities and differences in the application of the test-negative design that deserve further examination. If vaccination reduces disease severity in breakthrough infections, particular care must be taken in interpreting vaccine effectiveness estimates from test-negative design studies.


PMID: 31609860 DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000001116
 
Back
Top Bottom