Methodological Analysis: Randomized Controlled Trials for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines

被引:4
|
作者
Hallas, Donna [1 ]
Spratling, Regena [2 ]
Fletcher, Jason [3 ]
机构
[1] NYU, Rory Meyers Coll Nursing, Pediat Nurse Practitioner Program, New York, NY USA
[2] Georgia State Univ, Byrdine F Lewis Coll Nursing & Hlth Profess, Sch Nursing, Nursing, Atlanta, GA 30303 USA
[3] NYU, Rory Meyers Coll Nursing, New York, NY USA
关键词
Vaccinations; randomized control trial; coronavirus; CASP critical appraisals checklist; reporting guidelines;
D O I
10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.04.001
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) determines rigor, quality, and whether the findings are applicable to the populations served in clinical practices. The authors conducted a rigorous analysis using the RCT Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (GASP) Checklist for the two RCTs Pfizer (New York, NY) and Moderna (Cambridge, MA) conducted and the reporting of these RCTs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. The goals for this analysis were twofold: (1) enable health care providers to understand the methods and outcomes of these RCTs, and (2) enable health care providers and community leaders to become champions for the vaccines to reduce vaccine hesitancy among all populations. The analysis is presented using each of the 11 questions on the CASP tool while comparing the methodology and results for each vaccine. Most CASP tool items were positive or yes for both the Pfizer and Moderna RCTs. Items that were not scored as yes are discussed. The analysis outcomes revealed that both RCTs were rigorously conducted and provide an assurance to all health care providers and the public of the safety and efficacy of both vaccines to impact the astounding morbidity and mortality of COVID -19 disease. The authors believed that the analysis was an essential component of the distribution process to develop plans and communication strategies to reduce potential vaccine hesitancy and resistance.
引用
收藏
页码:443 / 448
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [2] Bivalent Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines for Booster Immunization
    不详
    [J]. MEDICAL LETTER ON DRUGS AND THERAPEUTICS, 2022, 64 (1660): : 159 - 160
  • [4] Disparity in Public Perception of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines on TikTok
    Baumel, Nicholas M.
    Spatharakis, John K.
    Baumel, Luke D.
    Sellas, Evangelos I.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH, 2022, 70 (03) : 514 - 514
  • [5] Nocebo responses in randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 vaccines
    Lee, Young Ho
    Song, Gwan Gyu
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS, 2022, 60 (01) : 5 - 12
  • [6] Using Twitter for sentiment analysis towards AstraZeneca/Oxford, Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
    Marcec, Robert
    Likic, Robert
    [J]. POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2022, 98 (1161) : 544 - 550
  • [7] COVID-19 vaccines: comparison of biological, pharmacological characteristics and adverse effects of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines
    Meo, S. A.
    Bukhari, I. A.
    Akram, J.
    Meo, A. S.
    Klonoff, D. C.
    [J]. EUROPEAN REVIEW FOR MEDICAL AND PHARMACOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2021, 25 (03) : 1663 - 1669
  • [8] Pregnancy outcomes in persons receiving pfizer versus moderna COVID-19 vaccines in the United States
    Darwin, Kristin C.
    Uribe, Katelyn
    Gaur, Priyanka
    Eke, Ahizechukwu
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2023, 228 (01) : S347 - S348
  • [9] COVID-19 Vaccines: Moderna And Pfizer-BioNTech Use Varied By Urban, Rural Counties
    Wen, Katherine
    Harris, Daniel A.
    Chachlani, Preeti
    Hayes, Kaleen N.
    Mccarthy, Ellen
    Zullo, Andrew R.
    Smith-Ray, Renae L.
    Singh, Tanya
    Djibo, Djeneba Audrey
    McMahill-Walraven, Cheryl N.
    Hiris, Jeffrey
    Conti, Rena M.
    Gruber, Jonathan
    Mor, Vincent
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2024, 43 (05) : 659 - 665
  • [10] Covid-19: CDC and FDA approve Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for under 5s
    Tanne, Janice Hopkins
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2022, 377 : o1507