Cited by 30Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating efficiency and statistical power of self-controlled case series and self-controlled risk interval designs in vaccine safety

Open access
Li, Rongxia, Stewart, Brock, Weintraub, Eric·2016·Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract

The self-controlled case series (SCCS) and self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) designs have recently become widely used in the field of post-licensure vaccine safety monitoring to detect potential elevated risks of adverse events following vaccinations. The SCRI design can be viewed as a subset of the SCCS method in that a reduced comparison time window is used for the analysis. Compared to the SCCS method, the SCRI design has less statistical power due to fewer events occurring in the shorter control interval. In this study, we derived the asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE) between these two methods to quantify this loss in power in the SCRI design. The equation is formulated as [Formula: see text] (a: control window-length ratio between SCRI and SCCS designs; b: ratio of risk window length and control window length in the SCCS design; and [Formula: see text]: relative risk of exposed window to control window). According to this equation, the relative efficiency declines as the ratio of control-period length between SCRI and SCCS methods decreases, or with an increase in the relative risk [Formula: see text]. We provide an example utilizing data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) to study the potential elevated risk of febrile seizure following seasonal influenza vaccine in the 2010-2011 season.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10543406.2015.1052819

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such comparisons can be executed rapidly and can play a key role in early detection of potential vaccine safety signals or when regulatory and public health agencies need rapid assessment of an emerging safety signal.

    “Such comparisons can be executed rapidly and can play a key role in early detection of potential vaccine safety signals or when regulatory and public health agencies need rapid assessment of an emerging safety signal [4,6].”

    From COVID-19 vaccines and adverse events of special interest: A multinational Global Vaccine Data Network (GVDN) cohort study of 99 million vaccinated individuals (2024) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says a shorter SCRI control interval is important for prompt signal detection, and the Discussion (page unavailable) says it can shorten surveillance delays and chart-review turnaround. The paper also says near-real-time analyses were generally delayed; it does not establish that such comparisons can generally be executed rapidly or specifically discuss rapid assessments by regulatory or public health agencies. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Li, R., Stewart, B., & Weintraub, E.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Li, Rongxia
Venue
Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
Published
2016-01-08
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
686-693
ISSN
  • 1054-3406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5711
OpenAlex
W2229943628
Cited by
29
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (CC999999)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
self-controlled case series, vaccine safety, asymptotic relative efficiency, statistical power, vaccine adverse events, febrile seizures, seasonal influenza vaccine, Vaccine Safety Datalink
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Influenza Vaccines, Research Design, Safety, Vaccination, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review