ArticleIrish journal of medical science2016
Generalisability of pharmacoepidemiological studies using restricted prescription data.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering patterns of respiratory medication use in Ireland to target interventions appropriately: a focus on COPD.Irish journal of medical science · 2021Article
- Using administrative health data for palliative and end of life care research in Ireland: potential and challenges.HRB open research · 2021Article
- The impact of prescription drug co-payments for publicly insured families.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- Pharmacoepidemiology resources in Ireland-an introduction to pharmacy claims data.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLinking medication databases to disease registries enables population-based pharmacoepidemiology research. In Ireland, country-wide dispensing data is available only from the means-tested government-medical cards scheme. This restriction may impact generalisability of analyses based on these data.
aimGender was previously identified as predictor of card status so we aimed to compare women with and without medical cards at the time of ovarian cancer diagnosis.
methodsOvarian cancers diagnosed 2001-2010 were identified from the National Cancer Registry Ireland. Age, region, deprivation, smoking, employment and marital status were evaluated using logistic regression for associations with card status. Cumulative incidence of de novo card receipt post-diagnosis was assessed.
results1778 (52 %) of 3396 women with incident ovarian cancer had a card at diagnosis (<70:33 %; 70+:87 %). Within those <70, all variables were significantly associated with card status at diagnosis. 52 % of those without a card at diagnosis received one post-diagnosis.
conclusionsAlthough medical card coverage within ovarian cancer patients is similar to the general population, various factors predict card status. Particularly within those under 70, external validity needs to be considered when interpreting pharamcoepidemiological analyses using these data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26443746What 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.