Immunogenicity and Safety of a Novel 13-Valent Pneumococcal Vaccine in Healthy Chinese Infants and Toddlers

Simple interval estimate methods for proportions exhibit poor coverage and can produce evidently inappropriate intervals. Criteria appropriate to the evaluation of various proposed methods include: closeness of the achieved coverage probability to its nominal value; whether intervals are located too close to or too distant from the middle of the scale; expected interval width; avoidance of aberrations such as limits outside [0,1] or zero width intervals; and ease of use, whether by tables, software or formulae. Seven methods for the single proportion are evaluated on 96,000 parameter space points. Intervals based on tail areas and the simpler score methods are recommended for use. In each case, methods are available that aim to align either the minimum or the mean coverage with the nominal 1 -alpha.

Several existing unconditional methods for setting confidence intervals for the difference between binomial proportions are evaluated. Computationally simpler methods are prone to a variety of aberrations and poor coverage properties. The closely interrelated methods of Mee and Miettinen and Nurminen perform well but require a computer program. Two new approaches which also avoid aberrations are developed and evaluated. A tail area profile likelihood based method produces the best coverage properties, but is difficult to calculate for large denominators. A method combining Wilson score intervals for the two proportions to be compared also performs well, and is readily implemented irrespective of sample size.