We hypothesized that observer bias could markedly effect the results of all pertussis vaccine efficacy trials including those with double-blinding. Specifically, a less efficacious vaccine which prevents typical disease, but not mild disease could be determined to be more efficacious than it is, if the study personnel have a preconceived opinion as to what clinical pertussis is. This could lead to an a priori dismissal of mild cases as being other respiratory illnesses, and therefore, cultures and acute-phase serum not obtained and proper follow up not carried out. We carried out a pertussis vaccine efficacy trial in Southern Germany from May 1991 until December 1994 in 227 physician offices. In a randomized, double-blind fashion, infants received 4 doses of either DTaP or DTP. Controls (unblinded) received DT. For this analysis we separated study investigators into 3 groups based upon their rate of investigation of possible cases:group 1 - high study rate (cough reporting rate [CR] ≥ 20% or evaluation rate [ER] ≥ 10%); group 2 - intermediate study rate (CR ≥ 10% or ER ≥ 5%) or group 3 - low study rate (CR < 10% or ER < 5%). Using ≥ 7 days of cough and laboratory confirmation the efficacy of DTaP vaccine was: group 1 40% (95% CI = -3-65), group 2 78% (95% CI = 65-86) and group 3 75% (95% CI = 63-87). With ≥ 21 days of cough and laboratory confirmation the DTaP vaccine efficacies were 69%, 86%, and 84% respectively. Our results indicate that observer bias can inflate efficacy; evidence of this bias is present in 2 other recent trials.
This study was supported by Wyeth-Lederle Vaccines and Pediatrics.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cherry, J., Heininger, U., Stehr, K. et al. The Effect of Observer Bias in Pertussis Vaccine Efficacy Trials. • 436. Pediatr Res 41 (Suppl 4), 75 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-199704001-00456
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-199704001-00456