This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Salmaso, S.
Right arrow Articles by Cherry, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Salmaso, S.
Right arrow Articles by Cherry, J. D.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 4 October 1999, pp. 997

Observer Bias in Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Trials

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

To the Editor.

We wish to comment on the recently published article1 that evaluates the impact of observer bias on the estimate of clinical efficacy of one acellular pertussis vaccine. The authors report that, in the Erlangen trial, the observed incidence in unblinded unvaccinated children (DT) was only 13%, compared with an expected figure of approximately 40%. To determine potential observer bias, the authors analyzed the trial physicians' cough referral rates and used these rates to divide the physicians into three categories indicating their compliance to the trial protocol, which required referral of any cough lasting >7 days. Physicians who had reported an at least 20% incidence of cough were classified as "highly compliant." The authors then recalculated vaccine efficacy for each compliance category and found that the estimated efficacy greatly varied . . . [Full Text of this Article]