• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Int J Epidemiol . The potential bias introduced into COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies at primary care level due to the availability of SARS-C

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Epidemiol


. 2025 Jun 11;54(4):dyaf086.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyaf086. The potential bias introduced into COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies at primary care level due to the availability of SARS-CoV-2 tests in the general population

Charlotte Lanièce Delaunay[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Baltazar Nunes[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Susana Monge[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Marit de Lange[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Gergő Túri[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Ausenda Machado[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Neus Latorre-Margalef[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Ivan Mlinarić[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Mihaela Lazar[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Paloma Botella Rocamora[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Annika Erdwiens[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Noémie Sève[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Lisa Domegan[SUP] 12 [/SUP], Iván Martínez-Baz[SUP] 13 14 [/SUP], Mariëtte Hooiveld[SUP] 15 [/SUP], Beatrix Oroszi[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Raquel Guiomar[SUP] 16 [/SUP], Maike Sperk[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Sanja Kurečić Filipović[SUP] 7 [/SUP], Catalina Pascu[SUP] 8 [/SUP], Juan Antonio Linares Dopido[SUP] 17 [/SUP], Ralf Dürrwald[SUP] 18 [/SUP], Marie-Anne Rameix-Welti[SUP] 19 20 21 [/SUP], Adele McKenna[SUP] 12 [/SUP], Jesús Castilla[SUP] 13 14 [/SUP], Cheyenne van Hagen[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Mirjam Knol[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Sabrina Bacci[SUP] 22 [/SUP], Marlena Kaczmarek[SUP] 22 [/SUP], Esther Kissling[SUP] 1 [/SUP]; VEBIS Primary Care Vaccine Effectiveness Group



Affiliations
Abstract

Background: With SARS-CoV-2 self-tests, persons with acute respiratory infections (ARI) can know their COVID-19 status. This may alter their decision to consult a general practitioner (GP), potentially biasing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. We explore bias mechanisms, simulate magnitude, and verify control methods.
Methods: We used directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to illustrate the bias mechanisms. Based on the European primary care VEBIS multicentre test-negative design (TND) study, we simulated populations with varying true VE (20%-60%), proportions of persons with ARI self-testing (10%-30%), effect of COVID-19 vaccination on self-testing (1.5-2.5), and effect of self-test result on GP consultation (0.5-2). We performed 5000 runs per scenario, estimating VE among those consulting a GP. We calculated bias as true VE minus mean simulated VE, unadjusted and adjusted for self-testing, using logistic regression.
Results: DAGs suggested collider stratification bias if vaccination had an effect on self-testing and if self-test results affected GP consultation. Bias was -12% to 18% at 20% true VE, with the most extreme associations and 30% self-testing. With 60% true VE and 10%-20% self-testing, bias was lower. Bias was higher (-18% to 45%) if both positive and negative self-test results affected GP consultation. Adjusting for self-testing removed the bias.
Conclusions: Self-testing may bias COVID-19 VE TND studies in primary care if self-testing is high, particularly with low VE. We recommend primary care TND VE studies collect self-testing information to eliminate potential bias. Observational studies are needed to understand the relationship between vaccination, self-testing, and GP consultation, in these studies' source population.

Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; bias; primary health care; self-testing; vaccine effectiveness.

 
Back
Top Bottom