However, this greater agreement may not be generalizable. It is based on mean scores internal to these clinical trials S3I-201 supplier which may not translate into the same level of agreement between scoring systems in

other studies using different methods for symptom collection, such as more frequent home visits by field workers or diary cards for real-time parental collection of symptoms. The CSS identified 9.5% and 6.3% of cases as severe in Africa and Asia, respectively. This is much lower than one-third of scores classified as severe according to the severity scoring distribution, while the VSS captured about 40.6% and 56.0% of cases as severe in Africa and Asia, respectively, similar to the one-half of cases captured as severe by Ruuska and Vesikari [20] in the case population in which it was originally designed. This reduction in identification of severe cases relative to the proportion of the scoring distribution classified as severe when using the CSS raises the question as to whether it was operating in these trial populations as it was originally intended and how this may relate to measurement of vaccine efficacy. Due to a lack of published

information on CSS development, it is difficult to know for certain what percentage of participants were expected to be captured Galunisertib in vivo as severe. The efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in more developed populations has been shown to increase with increasing disease severity [26] and [27]. In these trials of PRV in the developing these world, we would expect a higher efficacy against severe disease as measured by the CSS as compared to VSS, given that the CSS score distribution was shifted such that only the highest severity cases would have met the CSS severity threshold. However, the point estimates of efficacy measured in these trials were in fact similar using the two scoring systems’ original thresholds, indicating that

the CSS may not have performed as expected in these trials or that there may not be as strong of a relationship between severity and efficacy in these settings [6], [7], [8] and [9]. In the CSS, the definitions of behavior used (i.e. irritable, lethargic, and seizure) are subjective and do not have the same meaning or may be perceived differently in developing, as compared to developed, country settings leading to a reduction in the total CSS score. Additionally, since parents were not provided with thermometers and did not commonly have thermometers available at home, the full duration of fever may not have been captured, resulting in a reduction in the total CSS score. In the development of the original VSS, items were scored by breaking the score for each item into thirds [20]. It is not clear how mild, moderate, and severe cutoffs were created for the CSS [17] and [22].