Use of Recently Vaccinated Individuals to Detect Bias in Test-Negative Case–Control Studies of COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness

  1. Matt D. T. Hitchings
  2. Joseph A. Lewnard
  3. Natalie E. Dean
  4. Albert I. Ko
  5. Otavio T. Ranzani
  6. Jason R. Andrews
  7. Derek A. T. Cummings

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Postauthorization observational studies play a key role in understanding COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness following the demonstration of efficacy in clinical trials. Although bias due to confounding, selection bias, and misclassification can be mitigated through careful study design, unmeasured confounding is likely to remain in these observational studies. Phase III trials of COVID-19 vaccines have shown that protection from vaccination does not occur immediately, meaning that COVID-19 risk should be similar in recently vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, in the absence of confounding or other bias. Several studies have used the estimated effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals as a negative control exposure to detect bias in vaccine effectiveness estimates. In this paper, we introduce a theoretical framework to describe the interpretation of such a bias indicator in test-negative studies, and outline strong assumptions that would allow vaccine effectiveness among recently vaccinated individuals to serve as a negative control exposure.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1097/ede.0000000000001484
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.06.23.21259415: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your code.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.06.23.21259415 on medRxiv