SynthesisPloS one2012
Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology involving electronic healthcare databases: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Pooled it
- Real-World Performance and Safety of VISIOL in Modern Routine Cataract Surgery.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Bias Due to Within-Subject Exposure Dependency With or Without Bias Due to Lack of Pairwise Exchangeability When Exposure Is Chronic in Case-Crossover and Case-Time-Control Studies: A Simulation Study.American journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- The Role of the Contextual Cohort to Resolve Some Challenges and Limitations of Comparisons in Pharmacoepidemiology.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Article
- Risk of neuropsychiatric and cardiovascular adverse events following treatment with varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink: a case-cross-over study.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2021Article
- Bias in case-crossover studies of medications due to persistent use: A simulation study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Article
- Adjusting for unmeasured confounding in nonrandomized longitudinal studies: a methodological review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2017Review
- Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Among Dabigatran Users - A Self Controlled Case Series Analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Medication safety research by observational study design.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016Review
- Methods to control for unmeasured confounding in pharmacoepidemiology: an overview.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2016Review
- Self-controlled case-series study to verify the effect of adherence to Beta-blockers in secondary prevention of myocardial infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2015Article
- Association Between Third-Generation Fluoroquinolones and Achilles Tendon Rupture: A Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis.Annals of family medicineArticle
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
backgroundCase-only designs have been used since late 1980's. In these, as opposed to case-control or cohort studies for instance, only cases are required and are self-controlled, eliminating selection biases and confounding related to control subjects, and time-invariant characteristics. The objectives of this systematic review were to analyze how the two main case-only designs - case-crossover (CC) and self-controlled case series (SCCS) - have been applied and reported in pharmacoepidemiology literature, in terms of applicability assumptions and specificities of these designs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsWe systematically selected all reports in this field involving case-only designs from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 15, 2010. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The analysis included 93 reports 50 (54%) of CC and 45 (48%) SCCS, 2 reports combined both designs. In 12 (24%) CC and 18 (40%) SCCS articles, all applicable validity assumptions of the designs were fulfilled, respectively. Fifty (54%) articles (15 CC (30%) and 35 (78%) SCCS) adequately addressed the specificities of the case-only analyses in the way they reported results. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our systematic review underlines that implementation of CC and SCCS designs needs to be more rigorous with regard to validity assumptions, as well as improvement in results reporting.
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.