MedElevator
Войти в исследования International journal of epidemiology · 2026
Differences in SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic testing usage by COVID-19 vaccination status can bias vaccine effectiveness estimates against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection from a test-negative design.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wiegand Ryan E, Derado Gordana, Ciesla Allison Avrich, Qasmieh Saba A, Ferdinands Jill M, Flannery Brendan, Link-Gelles Ruth
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Use of rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) may bias vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates from test-negative design (TND) studies. We conducted individual-level simulations using national, US COVID-19 surveillance data to assess potential bias at varying likelihoods of visiting a healthcare facility and prevalence of RDT use.
METHODS: Twenty-one scenarios that varied the probabilities of visiting a healthcare facility and RDT use by vaccination status were simulated. VE was calculated as 100 × (1 - odds ratio), comparing the odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of people. VE estimates were compared to VE estimates from simulations without RDT testing to calculate the bias in percentage points (pp).
RESULTS: VE was underestimated when either vaccinated people were more likely (probability of .5) than unvaccinated people (probability of .3) to visit a healthcare facility after a positive RDT [-5.8%age points (pp); 95% uncertainty interval (UI): -9.1, -2.4] or unvaccinated people were more likely than vaccinated people to visit a healthcare facility after a negative RDT (bias = -6.1 pp; UI: -9.9, -2.5). Conversely, VE was overestimated when either vaccinated people were more likely than unvaccinated people to visit a healthcare facility after a negative RDT (bias = 5.2; UI: 2.4, 7.7) or unvaccinated people were more likely than vaccinated people to visit a healthcare facility after a positive RDT (bias = 8.4 pp; UI: 5.6, 11.3).
CONCLUSION: VE estimates against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection from a TND may be under- or overestimated, depending on differences in RDT usage between vaccination groups.
METHODS: Twenty-one scenarios that varied the probabilities of visiting a healthcare facility and RDT use by vaccination status were simulated. VE was calculated as 100 × (1 - odds ratio), comparing the odds of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of people. VE estimates were compared to VE estimates from simulations without RDT testing to calculate the bias in percentage points (pp).
RESULTS: VE was underestimated when either vaccinated people were more likely (probability of .5) than unvaccinated people (probability of .3) to visit a healthcare facility after a positive RDT [-5.8%age points (pp); 95% uncertainty interval (UI): -9.1, -2.4] or unvaccinated people were more likely than vaccinated people to visit a healthcare facility after a negative RDT (bias = -6.1 pp; UI: -9.9, -2.5). Conversely, VE was overestimated when either vaccinated people were more likely than unvaccinated people to visit a healthcare facility after a negative RDT (bias = 5.2; UI: 2.4, 7.7) or unvaccinated people were more likely than vaccinated people to visit a healthcare facility after a positive RDT (bias = 8.4 pp; UI: 5.6, 11.3).
CONCLUSION: VE estimates against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection from a TND may be under- or overestimated, depending on differences in RDT usage between vaccination groups.