Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, self-reported COVID-19 vaccination might facilitate rapid evaluations of vaccine effectiveness (VE) when source documentation (e.g., immunization information systems [IIS]) is not readily available. We evaluated the concordance of COVID-19 vaccination status ascertained by self-report versus source documentation and its impact on VE estimates.
Methods: Hospitalized adults (≥18 years) admitted to 18 U.S. medical centers March-June 2021 were enrolled, including COVID-19 cases and SARS-CoV-2 negative controls. Patients were interviewed about COVID-19 vaccination. Abstractors simultaneously searched IIS, medical records, and other sources for vaccination information. To compare vaccination status by self-report and documentation, we estimated percent agreement and unweighted kappa with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We then calculated VE in preventing COVID-19 hospitalization of full vaccination (2 doses of mRNA product ≥14 days prior to illness onset) independently using data from self-report or source documentation.
Results: Of 2520 patients, 594 (24%) did not have self-reported vaccination information to assign vaccination group; these patients tended to be more severely ill. Among 1924 patients with both self-report and source documentation information, 95.0% (95% CI: 93.9-95.9%) agreement was observed, with a kappa of 0.9127 (95% CI: 0.9109-0.9145). VE was 86% (95% CI: 81-90%) by self-report data only and 85% (95% CI: 81-89%) by source documentation data only.
Conclusions: Approximately one-quarter of hospitalized patients could not provide self-report COVID-19 vaccination status. Among patients with self-report information, there was high concordance with source documented status. Self-report may be a reasonable source of COVID-19 vaccination information for timely VE assessment for public health action.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9350035 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/irv.13023 | DOI Listing |
Am J Sports Med
January 2025
Inova Sports Medicine, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Background: Asymmetric landing kinetics 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are associated with higher risk of second anterior cruciate ligament injury. Little is known about landing kinetics after ACLR with an all-soft tissue quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft despite its increasingly common use in young, active patients.
Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare landing kinetics during a bilateral drop vertical jump (DVJ) 6 months after ACLR in participants who had undergone primary ACLR with a QT or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft.
Nature
January 2025
Institute of Computational Biology, Helmholtz Center, Munich, Germany.
Single-cell genomic technologies enable the multimodal profiling of millions of cells across temporal and spatial dimensions. However, experimental limitations hinder the comprehensive measurement of cells under native temporal dynamics and in their native spatial tissue niche. Optimal transport has emerged as a powerful tool to address these constraints and has facilitated the recovery of the original cellular context.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFOrthop J Sports Med
January 2025
Department of Sports Medical Center, Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Background: Graft selection is an important part of preoperative planning for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). In addition, ACLR with the remnant preservation technique has recently gained attention due to potential benefit in bone-tendon healing, graft revascularization, and proprioceptive nerve remodeling. However, the ideal graft choice remains controversial, and there is limited research comparing autograft and allograft in ACLR with remnant preservation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAm J Clin Pathol
January 2025
Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Objective: Diagnoses rendered using the frozen section (FS) technique during surgical procedures are used to guide intraoperative decisions. Therefore, diagnostic FS errors have the potential to affect patient safety and quality of care. Diagnostic FS errors arise due to both technical and interpretative factors and present a challenge to surgical pathology laboratories to recognize, document, and manage in a timely fashion.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!