ReviewClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2007
Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research.
Review in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
63 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adjusted treatment COMPArisons between guSelkumab and uStekinumab for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: the COMPASS analysis.The British journal of dermatology · 2020Pooled it
- Improving rheumatoid arthritis comparative effectiveness research through causal inference principles: systematic review using a target trial emulation framework.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2020Pooled it
- Disease risk score as a confounder summary method: systematic review and recommendations.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2013Pooled it
- Long-term comparative effectiveness of pegvaliase versus standard of care comparators in adults with phenylketonuria.Molecular genetics and metabolismTrial
- Comparative Clinical Outcomes of Nusinersen and Gene Therapy in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 1.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- A Scalable Approach to Assess the Safety of Recently Marketed Systemic Treatments for Atopic Dermatitis in Clinical Practice: First Analysis Cycle of a Sequential Monitoring System.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2025Article
- Trends in COPD severe exacerbations, and all-cause and respiratory mortality, before and after implementation of newer long-acting bronchodilators in a large population-based cohort.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of VTE, MACE, and Serious Infections Among Patients with RA Treated with Baricitinib Compared to TNFi: A Multi-Database Study of Patients in Routine Care Using Disease Registries and Claims Databases.Rheumatology and therapy · 2023Article
- Improved Efficacy of Tafasitamab plus Lenalidomide versus Systemic Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory DLBCL: RE-MIND2, an Observational Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022Article
- Real-World Evidence Prediction of a Phase IV Oncology Trial: Comparative Degarelix vs Leuprolide Safety.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
- Accuracy of identifying diagnosis of moderate to severe chronic kidney disease in administrative claims data.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Article
- Matching Methods for Confounder Adjustment: An Addition to the Epidemiologist's Toolbox.Epidemiologic reviews · 2022Review
- Breaking new frontiers: Assessment and re-evaluation of clinical trial design for nutraceuticals.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- A novel data mining application to detect safety signals for newly approved medications in routine care of patients with diabetes.Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2021Article
- A systematic approach for introduction of novel treatments to a chronic patient group: sacubitril-valsartan as a case study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2021Article
- Comparing direct acting antivirals for hepatitis C using observational data - Why and how?Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2020Observational
- Usability of Clinical Information in Discharge Summary Data in the Diagnosis Procedure Combination Survey for Cancer Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Ethics and Collateral Findings in Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2020Article
- Evaluation of bottom-up interventions targeting community-dwelling frail older people in Belgium: methodological challenges and lessons for future comparative effectiveness studies.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Article
3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Physicians and insurers need to weigh the effectiveness of new drugs against existing therapeutics in routine care to make decisions about treatment and formularies. Because Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of most new drugs requires demonstrating efficacy and safety against placebo, there is limited interest by manufacturers in conducting such head-to-head trials. Comparative effectiveness research seeks to provide head-to-head comparisons of treatment outcomes in routine care. Health-care utilization databases record drug use and selected health outcomes for large populations in a timely way and reflect routine care, and therefore may be the preferred data source for comparative effectiveness research. Confounding caused by selective prescribing based on indication, severity, and prognosis threatens the validity of non-randomized database studies that often have limited details on clinical information. Several recent developments may bring the field closer to acceptable validity, including approaches that exploit the concepts of proxy variables using high-dimensional propensity scores, within-patient variation of drug exposure using crossover designs, and between-provider variation in prescribing preference using instrumental variable (IV) analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.