Test-negative Designs with Various Reasons for Testing: Statistical Bias and Solution

Test-negative designs (TNDs) are widely used for postmarket evaluation of vaccine effectiveness (VE), particularly in cases when randomized trials are not feasible. Unlike classical TNDs, which only include healthcare seekers with symptoms, recent TNDs have involved individuals with various reasons for testing, especially in an outbreak setting. While including these data can increase sample size and hence improve precision, concerns have been raised about whether they introduce bias into the current framework of TNDs, thereby demanding a formal statistical examination of this modified design. In this article, using statistical derivations, causal graphs, and numerical demonstrations, we show that the standard odds ratio estimator may be biased if various reasons for testing are not taken into account. To eliminate this bias, we identify three categories of reasons for testing, namely symptoms, mandatory screening, and case contact tracing, and characterize associated statistical properties and estimands. Based on our characterization, we show how to consistently estimate each estimand via stratification. Furthermore, we describe when these estimands correspond to the same VE parameter and, when appropriate, propose a stratified estimator that can incorporate multiple reasons for testing and improve precision. We demonstrate the performance of our proposed method through simulation studies and a real-data analysis.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Epidemiology
Published
2025-12-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0000000000001940
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Test-negative Designs with Various Reasons for Testing: Statistical Bias and Solution

Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Kendrick Qijun Li, Nicholas P. Jewell, Xu Shi et al.
Epidemiology
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
article

Test-negative Designs with Various Reasons for Testing: Statistical Bias and Solution

Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen, Kendrick Qijun Li, Nicholas P. Jewell, Xu Shi, Dylan S. Small, Tom Hongyi Liu, Mengxin Yu, Bingkai Wang
article en

Abstract

Test-negative designs (TNDs) are widely used for postmarket evaluation of vaccine effectiveness (VE), particularly in cases when randomized trials are not feasible. Unlike classical TNDs, which only include healthcare seekers with symptoms, recent TNDs have involved individuals with various reasons for testing, especially in an outbreak setting. While including these data can increase sample size and hence improve precision, concerns have been raised about whether they introduce bias into the current framework of TNDs, thereby demanding a formal statistical examination of this modified design. In this article, using statistical derivations, causal graphs, and numerical demonstrations, we show that the standard odds ratio estimator may be biased if various reasons for testing are not taken into account. To eliminate this bias, we identify three categories of reasons for testing, namely symptoms, mandatory screening, and case contact tracing, and characterize associated statistical properties and estimands. Based on our characterization, we show how to consistently estimate each estimand via stratification. Furthermore, we describe when these estimands correspond to the same VE parameter and, when appropriate, propose a stratified estimator that can incorporate multiple reasons for testing and improve precision. We demonstrate the performance of our proposed method through simulation studies and a real-data analysis.

EpidemiologyVol. 37(2)
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US), University of Michigan (US), University of the Arts (US), University of Pennsylvania (US), University of California, Berkeley (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.