Cited by 127SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchVaccine Coverage and HesitancyInfluenza Virus Research Studies

Effects of Confounding Bias in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Test-Negative Designs Due to Correlated Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccination Behaviors

Open access
Doll, Margaret K, Pettigrew, Stacy M, Ma, Julia, Verma, Aman·2022·Clinical Infectious Diseases

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: The test-negative design is commonly used to estimate influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness (VE). In these studies, correlated COVID-19 and influenza vaccine behaviors may introduce a confounding bias where controls are included with the other vaccine-preventable acute respiratory illness (ARI). We quantified the impact of this bias on VE estimates in studies where this bias is not addressed. Methods: We simulated study populations under varying vaccination probabilities, COVID-19 VE, influenza VE, and proportions of controls included with the other vaccine-preventable ARI. Mean bias was calculated as the difference between estimated and true VE. Absolute mean bias in VE estimates was classified as low (<10%), moderate (10% to <20%), and high (≥20%). Results: Where vaccination probabilities are positively correlated, COVID-19 and influenza VE test-negative studies with influenza and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ARI controls, respectively, underestimate VE. For COVID-19 VE studies, mean bias was low for all scenarios where influenza represented ≤25% of controls. For influenza VE studies, mean bias was low for all scenarios where SARS-CoV-2 represented ≤10% of controls. Although bias was driven by the conditional probability of vaccination, low VE of the vaccine of interest and high VE of the confounding vaccine increase its magnitude. Conclusions: Where a low percentage of controls is included with the other vaccine-preventable ARI, bias in COVID-19 and influenza VE estimates is low. However, influenza VE estimates are likely more susceptible to bias. Researchers should consider potential bias and its implications in their respective study settings to make informed methodological decisions in test-negative VE studies.

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 · 10.1093/cid/ciac234

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Jackson ML, Rothman KJ. Effects of imperfect test sensitivity and specificity on observational studies of influenza vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine 2015; 33:1313-6.
  2. Butt AA, Omer SB, Yan P, Shaikh OS, Mayr FB. SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in a high-risk national population in a real-world setting. Ann Intern Med 2021; 174:1404-8.
  3. Thompson MG, Stenehjem E, Grannis S, et al. Effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines in ambulatory and inpatient care settings. N Engl J Med 2021; 385:1355-71.
  4. Halloran ME, Longini IM, Struchiner CJ, Longini IM. Design and analysis of vac- cine studies. New York: Springer, 2010.
  5. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.
  6. Jackson ML, Nelson JC. The test-negative design for estimating influenza vaccine effectiveness. Vaccine 2013; 31:2165-8.
  7. Wolff GG. Influenza vaccination and respiratory virus interference among de- partment of defense personnel during the 2017-2018 influenza season. Vaccine 2020; 38:350-54.
  8. Skowronski DM, Zou M, Clarke Q, et al. Influenza vaccine does not increase the risk of coronavirus or other noninfluenza respiratory viruses: retrospective anal- ysis from Canada, 2010-2011 to 2016-2017. Clin Infect Dis 2020; 71:2285-8.
  9. Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK, Mandel JS. Selection of controls in case-control studies: II. Types of controls. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135:1029-41.
  10. Grochowska M, Ratajczak A, Zdunek G, Adamiec A, Waszkiewicz P, Feleszko W. A comparison of the level of acceptance and hesitancy towards the influenza vaccine and the forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine in the medical community. Vaccines (Basel) 2021; 9:475.
  11. Li M, Luo Y, Watson R, et al. Healthcare workers' (HCWs) attitudes and related factors towards COVID-19 vaccination: a rapid systematic review [manuscript published online ahead of print 30 June 2021]. Postgrad Med J 2021. doi:10.1136/ postgradmedj-2021-140195. · DOI
  12. Wang Q, Yang L, Jin H, Lin L. Vaccination against COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of acceptability and its predictors. Prev Med 2021; 150:106694.
  13. Wacholder S, McLaughlin JK, Silverman DT, Mandel JS. Selection of controls in case-control studies: I. Principles. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135:1019-28.
  14. Fowlkes A, Gaglani M, Groover K, et al. Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers before and during B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant predominance-eight U.S. locations, December 2020- August 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1167-9.
  15. Nanduri S. Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among nursing home residents before and during wide- spread circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B. 1.617. 2 (Delta) variant-National Healthcare Safety Network, March 1-August 1, 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2021; 70:1163-6.
  16. Ferdinands JM. Waning 2-dose and 3-dose effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19-associated emergency department and urgent care encoun- ters and hospitalizations among adults during periods of Delta and Omicron variant predominance-VISION network, 10 states, August 2021-January 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022; 71:255-63.
  17. Flannery B, Chung JR, Monto AS, et al. Influenza vaccine effectiveness in the United States during the 2016-2017 season. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68:1798-806.
  18. Flannery B, Kondor RJG, Chung JR, et al. Spread of antigenically drifted influ- enza A(H3N2) viruses and vaccine effectiveness in the United States during the 2018-2019 season. J Infect Dis 2020; 221:8-15.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Doll, M. K., Pettigrew, S. M., Ma, J., & Verma, A.
Affiliations
  • Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (US)
  • Precision Analytics , Montreal, Quebec , Canada
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Doll, Margaret K
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Published
2022-03-24
Volume
75
Issue
1
Pages
e564-e571
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
OpenAlex
W4220727497
Cited by
127
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12
FWCI
12.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
Keywords
confounding, test-negative design, COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, influenza vaccine effectiveness, SARS-CoV-2, influenza, acute respiratory illness, vaccination behavior, vaccine-preventable diseases
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Vaccines, Vaccine Efficacy, Humans, Influenza, Human, Influenza Vaccines, Vaccination, Case-Control Studies

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