Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30258633›Full record

ArticlePharmacology research & perspectives2018

Methods for the assessment of selection bias in drug safety during pregnancy studies using electronic medical data.

Mireille E Schnitzer, Lucie Blais

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mireille E SchnitzerFaculté de pharmacie Université de Montréal Montreal Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8049-9646
Lucie BlaisFaculté de pharmacie Université de Montréal Montreal Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8420-3128
Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal · CAUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Abortion, SpontaneousAbortion, TherapeuticAdultAnti-Asthmatic AgentsAsthmaCohort StudiesDrug MonitoringElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansLive BirthModels, StatisticalOdds RatioPatient SelectionPregnancyPregnant PeopleAnti-Asthmatic Agentsdirected acyclic graphsdrug effectiveness and safetylive birth biaspregnancyselection biassensitivity analysissimulation study

Identifiers

PMID30258633
PMCPMC6149369
OpenAlexW2892725021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.