Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17610337›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2007

Retrospective economic and outcomes analyses using non-US databases: a review.

Lizheng Shi, Eric Q Wu, Meredith Hodges, Andrew Yu, Howard Birnbaum

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lizheng ShiDepartment of Health Systems Management, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, USA. lshi1@tulane.edu
Eric Q Wu
Meredith Hodges
Andrew Yu
Howard Birnbaum

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retrospective database analyses pose a series of methodological challenges, some of which are unique to their data sources, particularly in countries outside the US. This study aimed to qualitatively review the methodological challenges of using non-US databases to conduct retrospective economic and outcomes research studies. We conducted a MEDLINE search to obtain a sample of literature published after the year 2000 on retrospective analyses using non-US databases. We reviewed all relevant components of the selected articles in accordance with the checklist proposed for retrospective database studies by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Task Force and identified issues found in the data sources, methods, study designs, statistics and sources of possible threats to internal and external validity. We found a wide variation in the quality of studies in terms of outcome definitions, patient selection criteria, data collection methods, sample sizes, risk adjustment methods, potential measurement errors and external validity of the studies. Few economic studies included information on indirect cost components because of a lack of relevant data. The quality of non-US retrospective database analyses varied. Future such analyses may be improved if researchers implement the checklist developed by the ISPOR Task Force on Retrospective Database Studies.

Indexed as

Drug TherapyDatabases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEconomics, PharmaceuticalEuropeFemaleHumansMaleOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.