Application of methodological strategies to address unmeasured confounding in real-world vaccine safety and effectiveness study: a systematic review

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jinxin Guo , Tiansheng Wang , Hui Cao , Qinyi Ma , Yuchuan Tang , Tong Li , Lu Wang , Yang Xu , Siyan Zhan
{"title":"Application of methodological strategies to address unmeasured confounding in real-world vaccine safety and effectiveness study: a systematic review","authors":"Jinxin Guo ,&nbsp;Tiansheng Wang ,&nbsp;Hui Cao ,&nbsp;Qinyi Ma ,&nbsp;Yuchuan Tang ,&nbsp;Tong Li ,&nbsp;Lu Wang ,&nbsp;Yang Xu ,&nbsp;Siyan Zhan","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Uses of real-world data to evaluate vaccine safety and effectiveness are often challenged by unmeasured confounding. The study aimed to review the application of methods to address unmeasured confounding in observational vaccine safety and effectiveness research.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42024519882), and searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus for epidemiological studies investigating influenza and COVID-19 vaccines as exposures, and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as outcomes, published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2023. Data on study design and statistical analyses were extracted from eligible articles.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 913 studies were included, of which 42 (4.6%, 42/913) accounted for unmeasured confounding through statistical correction (31.0%, 13/42) or confounding detection or quantification (78.6%, 33/42). Negative control was employed in 24 (57.1%, 24/42) studies—2 (8.3%, 2/24) for confounding correction and 22 (91.7%, 22/24) for confounding detection or quantification—followed by E-value (31.0%, 13/42), prior event rate ratio (11.9%, 5/42), regression discontinuity design (7.1%, 3/42), instrumental variable (4.8%, 2/42), and difference-in-differences (2.4%, 1/42). A total of 871 (95.4%, 871/913) studies did not address unmeasured confounding, but 38.9% (355/913) reported it as study limitation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Unmeasured confounding in real-world vaccine safety and effectiveness studies remains underexplored. Current research primarily employed confounding detection or quantification, notably negative control and E-value, which did not yield adjusted effect estimates. While some studies used correction methods like instrumental variable, regression discontinuity design, and negative control, challenges arise from the stringent assumptions. Future efforts should prioritize developing valid methodologies to mitigate unmeasured confounding.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 111737"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625000708","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Uses of real-world data to evaluate vaccine safety and effectiveness are often challenged by unmeasured confounding. The study aimed to review the application of methods to address unmeasured confounding in observational vaccine safety and effectiveness research.

Study Design and Setting

We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42024519882), and searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus for epidemiological studies investigating influenza and COVID-19 vaccines as exposures, and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases as outcomes, published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2023. Data on study design and statistical analyses were extracted from eligible articles.

Results

A total of 913 studies were included, of which 42 (4.6%, 42/913) accounted for unmeasured confounding through statistical correction (31.0%, 13/42) or confounding detection or quantification (78.6%, 33/42). Negative control was employed in 24 (57.1%, 24/42) studies—2 (8.3%, 2/24) for confounding correction and 22 (91.7%, 22/24) for confounding detection or quantification—followed by E-value (31.0%, 13/42), prior event rate ratio (11.9%, 5/42), regression discontinuity design (7.1%, 3/42), instrumental variable (4.8%, 2/42), and difference-in-differences (2.4%, 1/42). A total of 871 (95.4%, 871/913) studies did not address unmeasured confounding, but 38.9% (355/913) reported it as study limitation.

Conclusion

Unmeasured confounding in real-world vaccine safety and effectiveness studies remains underexplored. Current research primarily employed confounding detection or quantification, notably negative control and E-value, which did not yield adjusted effect estimates. While some studies used correction methods like instrumental variable, regression discontinuity design, and negative control, challenges arise from the stringent assumptions. Future efforts should prioritize developing valid methodologies to mitigate unmeasured confounding.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信