Clinical Trials Aren’t the Only Way to Know if Flu Shots Work
With a bit of creativity, evidence can be drawn from data we already have in the form of natural experiments, write Christopher M. Worsham and Anupam B. Jena.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently reconsidered its recommendation for annual flu shots in children, citing a lack of randomized controlled trials. This sparked debate, but a new study presents an alternative method for assessing vaccine efficacy, utilizing existing data and minimizing statistical bias. Accidental randomization, such as children receiving flu shots at their annual checkups based on their birth month, offers a way to measure vaccine effectiveness without conducting a new trial.
In the study, children born in fall months, who were more likely to get the flu shot due to scheduling, had fewer cases of influenza compared to those with summer birthdays. This natural experiment demonstrated the vaccine's effectiveness in various flu seasons. While randomized trials remain the gold standard for evidence, they are often impractical due to cost, time, and ethical considerations.
Utilizing data already collected and analyzing it through natural experiments can provide valuable insights into vaccine efficacy without the need for new trials.
Written by urgent.news from Time's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — it may contain errors, so check the original before relying on it.
