ReviewPharmacoEconomics2007
Retrospective economic and outcomes analyses using non-US databases: a review.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Substance use history in behavioral-variant frontotemporal dementia versus primary progressive aphasia.Journal of addictive diseases · 2016Article
- APOE e4 genotype and cigarette smoking in adults with normal cognition and mild cognitive impairment: a retrospective baseline analysis of a national dataset.The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
17610337What 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.