ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2018
Methods for the assessment of selection bias in drug safety during pregnancy studies using electronic medical data.
Article in Pharmacology research & perspectives, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pregnancy identification method as a source of bias in studies of prenatal exposures using real-world data.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- A potential outcomes approach to defining and estimating gestational age-specific exposure effects during pregnancy.Statistical methods in medical research · 2022Article
- Medicines prescribed for asthma, discontinuation and perinatal outcomes, including breastfeeding: A population cohort analysis.PloS one · 2020Article
- Methods for the assessment of selection bias in drug safety during pregnancy studies using electronic medical data.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electronic health data are routinely used for population drug studies. Due to the ethical dilemma in carrying out experimental drug studies on pregnant women, the effects of medication usage during pregnancy on fetal and maternal outcomes are largely evaluated using this data collection medium. One major limitation in this type of study is the delayed inclusion of pregnancies in the cohort. For example, in the province of Quebec, Canada, a major pregnancy cohort only captured pregnancies after 20 weeks gestation. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate three methods that can be used to assess the extent of selection bias due to the delayed inclusion of pregnancies. We use causal directed acyclic graphs to explain the source of this selection bias. In an example involving a cohort of pregnant asthmatic women reconstructed from the linkage of administrative health databases from the province of Quebec, we use numerical derivations, a simulation study and a sensitivity analysis to investigate the potential for bias and loss of power due to the delayed inclusion. We find that this selection bias can be partially mitigated by controlling for variables related to (spontaneous or therapeutic) abortion and the outcome of interest. The three proposed methods allow for the pre and post hoc ascertainment of the bias. While delayed pregnancy inclusion selection bias (which includes "live birth bias") can produce substantial bias in pregnancy drug studies, all three methods are effective at producing estimates of the size of the bias.
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.