TY - JOUR
T1 - Methodological Analysis
T2 - Randomized Controlled Trials for Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 Vaccines
AU - Hallas, Donna
AU - Spratling, Regena
AU - Fletcher, Jason
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
PY - 2021/7/1
Y1 - 2021/7/1
N2 - 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 (CASP) 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.
AB - 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 (CASP) 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.
KW - CASP critical appraisals checklist
KW - Vaccinations
KW - coronavirus
KW - randomized control trial
KW - reporting guidelines
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85109140454&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85109140454&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.04.001
DO - 10.1016/j.pedhc.2021.04.001
M3 - Article
C2 - 34243845
AN - SCOPUS:85109140454
SN - 0891-5245
VL - 35
SP - 443
EP - 448
JO - Journal of Pediatric Health Care
JF - Journal of Pediatric Health Care
IS - 4
ER -