ArticlePloS one2013
Propensity score estimation to address calendar time-specific channeling in comparative effectiveness research of second generation antipsychotics.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and risk of age-related macular degeneration in individuals with hypertension.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Propensity score methods to control for confounding in observational cohort studies: a statistical primer and application to endoscopy research.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2019Review
- Optimal Timing of Physician Visits after Hospital Discharge to Reduce Readmission.Health services research · 2018Article
- Propensity Scores in Pharmacoepidemiology: Beyond the Horizon.Current epidemiology reports · 2017Article
- Assessment of channeling bias among initiators of glucose-lowering drugs: A UK cohort study.Clinical epidemiology · 2017Article
- Model Misspecification When Excluding Instrumental Variables From PS Models in Settings Where Instruments Modify the Effects of Covariates on Treatment.Epidemiologic methods · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChanneling occurs when a medication and its potential comparators are selectively prescribed based on differences in underlying patient characteristics. Drug safety advisories can provide new information regarding the relative safety or effectiveness of a drug product which might increase selective prescribing. In particular, when reported adverse effects vary among drugs within a therapeutic class, clinicians may channel patients toward or away from a drug based on the patient's underlying risk for an adverse outcome. If channeling is not identified and appropriately managed it might lead to confounding in observational comparative effectiveness studies.
objectiveTo demonstrate channeling among new users of second generation antipsychotics following a Food and Drug Administration safety advisory and to evaluate the impact of channeling on cardiovascular risk estimates over time. DATA SOURCE: Florida Medicaid data from 2001-2006. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort of adults initiating second generation antipsychotics. We used propensity scores to match olanzapine initiators with other second generation antipsychotic initiators. To evaluate channeling away from olanzapine following an FDA safety advisory, we estimated calendar time-specific propensity scores. We compare the performance of these calendar time-specific propensity scores with conventionally-estimated propensity scores on estimates of cardiovascular risk. PRINCIPAL
findingsIncreased channeling away from olanzapine was evident for some, but not all, cardiovascular risk factors and corresponded with the timing of the FDA advisory. Covariate balance was optimized within period and across all periods when using the calendar time-specific propensity score. Hazard ratio estimates for cardiovascular outcomes did not differ across models (Conventional PS: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.81-3.18 versus calendar time-specific PS: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.77-3.04).
conclusionsChanges in channeling over time was evident for several covariates but had limited impact on cardiovascular risk estimates, possibly due to unmeasured confounding. Although calendar time-specific propensity scores appear to improve covariate balance, the impact on comparative effectiveness results is limited in this setting.
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.