Immunisation, Hepatitis and Blood Safety Department, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Clin Infect Dis. 2019 May 2;68(10):1769-1776. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy906.
Randomized, controlled trials are not always possible to evaluate interventions targeting infectious disease. This is frequently the case when evaluating the population-level impact of vaccines or when evaluating interventions aiming to increase vaccine uptake. Under such circumstances, an array of quasi-experimental designs is increasingly being used to evaluate the effects of vaccines on a wide range of morbidity and health service outcomes. These studies can provide valuable information on the impact of vaccination programs and other related interventions in real-world settings. Nevertheless, not all quasi-experimental designs are equal, and it is important that authors and readers are aware of their relative strengths and potential sources of bias. In this paper, we discuss what a quasi-experimental design is, when they might be used for vaccine evaluation, their strengths and limitations, and examples of their application.
随机对照试验并不总是能够评估针对传染病的干预措施。当评估疫苗对人群的影响或评估旨在提高疫苗接种率的干预措施时,通常就是这种情况。在这种情况下,越来越多的准实验设计被用于评估疫苗对广泛的发病率和卫生服务结果的影响。这些研究可以为疫苗接种计划和其他相关干预措施在现实环境中的影响提供有价值的信息。然而,并非所有准实验设计都是平等的,作者和读者都应该意识到它们的相对优势和潜在的偏差来源。在本文中,我们讨论了准实验设计是什么,何时可以用于疫苗评估,它们的优缺点,以及它们的应用示例。