↓ Skip to main content

Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2021
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12889-021-10543-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael L. Jackson, Jill Ferdinands, Mary Patricia Nowalk, Richard K. Zimmerman, Burney Kieke, Manjusha Gaglani, Kempapura Murthy, Joshua G. Petrie, Emily T. Martin, Jessie R. Chung, Brendan Flannery, Lisa A. Jackson

Abstract

Routine influenza vaccine effectiveness (VE) surveillance networks use frequentist methods to estimate VE. With data from more than a decade of VE surveillance from diverse global populations now available, using Bayesian methods to explicitly account for this knowledge may be beneficial. This study explores differences between Bayesian vs. frequentist inference in multiple seasons with varying VE. We used data from the United States Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness (US Flu VE) Network. Ambulatory care patients with acute respiratory illness were enrolled during seasons of varying observed VE based on traditional frequentist methods. We estimated VE against A(H1N1)pdm in 2015/16, dominated by A(H1N1)pdm; against A(H3N2) in 2017/18, dominated by A(H3N2); and compared VE for live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) vs. inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) among children aged 2-17 years in 2013/14, also dominated by A(H1N1)pdm. VE was estimated using both frequentist and Bayesian methods using the test-negative design. For the Bayesian estimates, prior VE distributions were based on data from all published test-negative studies of the same influenza type/subtype available prior to the season of interest. Across the three seasons, 16,342 subjects were included in the analyses. For 2015/16, frequentist and Bayesian VE estimates were essentially identical (41% each). For 2017/18, frequentist and Bayesian estimates of VE against A(H3N2) viruses were also nearly identical (26% vs. 23%, respectively), even though the presence of apparent antigenic match could potentially have pulled Bayesian estimates upward. Precision of estimates was similar between methods in both seasons. Frequentist and Bayesian estimates diverged for children in 2013/14. Under the frequentist approach, LAIV effectiveness was 62 percentage points lower than IIV, while LAIV was only 27 percentage points lower than IIV under the Bayesian approach. Bayesian estimates of influenza VE can differ from frequentist estimates to a clinically meaningful degree when VE diverges substantially from previous seasons.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 30%
Student > Postgraduate 2 20%
Unspecified 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%
Unspecified 1 10%
Unknown 6 60%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 September 2022.
All research outputs
#16,626,504
of 24,462,749 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#12,303
of 16,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,189
of 428,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#312
of 413 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,462,749 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,166 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 413 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.