The Large One
Who's Next?
Well, I learned something today. The standardisation of vaccine safety data is called 'The Brighton Collaboration', and is named after the location of the 'Vaccine Conference' - i.e. Brighton in 1999. Doctor Robert Chen addressed the conference on the necessity of a uniform approach to vaccine data, and a steering committee was subsequently set up.
A little history...
Standardised Case Definitions and the Brighton Collaboration
Vaccines are used worldwide, and a shared terminology in the field of vaccine safety is essential. Standardisation of AEFI (adverse effects following immunisation) reporting facilitates comparability and communication of vaccine safety data, which can play a key role in maintaining trust in current immunisation programmes.
Unlike vaccine safety, safety cannot be measured directly. Safety can only be inferred from the relative absence of vaccine adverse events. The lack of standard case definitions and guidelines for vaccine adverse events has hindered our ability to compare vaccine safety data.
Comparability is important for an evidence-based understanding of the safety of different vaccines and vaccines used in different populations. However, relatively little work to develop case definitions for use in immunisation safety has [sic] occurred before the establishment of the Brighton Collaboration.
The Brighton Collaboration
Work began with the formation of a steering committee and creation of working groups, composed of international volunteers with expertise in vaccine safety, patient care, pharmaceuticals, regulatory affairs, public health and vaccine delivery. The guidelines for collecting, analysing and presenting safety data facilitate sharing and comparison of vaccine data from different geographic locations among vaccine safety professionals worldwide.
The report continues...
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/129626
Colloquially among scientists, they query findings and data with 'does is meet 'Brighton'?' or 'does it pass the Brighton test?'
Alright, it's not going to get us three points, but I thought it was kind of interesting.
A little history...
Standardised Case Definitions and the Brighton Collaboration
Vaccines are used worldwide, and a shared terminology in the field of vaccine safety is essential. Standardisation of AEFI (adverse effects following immunisation) reporting facilitates comparability and communication of vaccine safety data, which can play a key role in maintaining trust in current immunisation programmes.
Unlike vaccine safety, safety cannot be measured directly. Safety can only be inferred from the relative absence of vaccine adverse events. The lack of standard case definitions and guidelines for vaccine adverse events has hindered our ability to compare vaccine safety data.
Comparability is important for an evidence-based understanding of the safety of different vaccines and vaccines used in different populations. However, relatively little work to develop case definitions for use in immunisation safety has [sic] occurred before the establishment of the Brighton Collaboration.
The Brighton Collaboration
Work began with the formation of a steering committee and creation of working groups, composed of international volunteers with expertise in vaccine safety, patient care, pharmaceuticals, regulatory affairs, public health and vaccine delivery. The guidelines for collecting, analysing and presenting safety data facilitate sharing and comparison of vaccine data from different geographic locations among vaccine safety professionals worldwide.
The report continues...
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/129626
Colloquially among scientists, they query findings and data with 'does is meet 'Brighton'?' or 'does it pass the Brighton test?'
Alright, it's not going to get us three points, but I thought it was kind of interesting.