Guo Jinxin, Wang Tiansheng, Cao Hui, Ma Qinyi, Tang Yuchuan, Li Tong, Wang Lu, Xu Yang, Zhan Siyan
Key Laboratory of Epidemiology of Major Diseases, Ministry of Education/Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 May;181:111737. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111737. Epub 2025 Feb 25.
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.
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.
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.
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.
利用真实世界数据评估疫苗安全性和有效性常常受到未测量混杂因素的挑战。本研究旨在回顾在观察性疫苗安全性和有效性研究中解决未测量混杂因素的方法的应用情况。
我们进行了一项系统综述(PROSPERO:CRD42024519882),并在PubMed、科学引文索引、Embase和Scopus数据库中检索了2017年1月1日至2023年12月31日期间发表的将流感疫苗和新冠疫苗作为暴露因素,将呼吸道疾病和心血管疾病作为结局的流行病学研究。从符合条件的文章中提取有关研究设计和统计分析的数据。
共纳入913项研究,其中42项(4.6%,42/913)通过统计校正(31.0%,13/42)或混杂因素检测或量化(78.6%,33/42)处理了未测量的混杂因素。24项(57.1%,24/42)研究采用了阴性对照,其中2项(8.3%,2/24)用于混杂因素校正,22项(91.7%,22/24)用于混杂因素检测或量化,其次是E值(31.0%,13/42)、先验事件率比(11.9%,5/42)、回归断点设计(7.1%,3/42)、工具变量(4.8%,2/42)和差分法(2.4%,1/42)。共有871项(95.4%,871/913)研究未处理未测量的混杂因素,但38.9%(355/913)将其报告为研究局限性。
真实世界疫苗安全性和有效性研究中的未测量混杂因素仍未得到充分探索。当前研究主要采用混杂因素检测或量化方法,尤其是阴性对照和E值,但未得出调整后的效应估计值。虽然一些研究使用了工具变量、回归断点设计和阴性对照等校正方法,但由于严格的假设而面临挑战。未来的努力应优先开发有效的方法来减轻未测量的混杂因素。