ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2019
Pharmacoepidemiology: Using randomised control trials and observational studies in clinical decision-making.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Pooled it
- Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation for the Prevention of Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Modelling beyond additive risks: A framework for estimating the cascading burden of environmental exposure.Eco-Environment & Health · 2026Article
- Demonstrating transportability of real-world evidence: what do HTA bodies and health technology developers need?International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Review
- Comparative Cardiovascular Outcomes of Tirzepatide and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Safety Profile of Medications for Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Epidemiological Analysis of Completed RCTs from ClinicalTrials.gov.Pharmaceutics · 2026Article
- Target trial emulation: bridging observational studies and randomized trials for health decision-making.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Representation in robotic surgery randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.BMJ connections surgery · 2026Article
- Statin Use and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Survival: A Population-Based Cohort Study.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Case studies of health economic analyses informing pharmaceutical health technology assessments for essential medicine selection and public-sector guidelines in South Africa.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Article
- Adverse Drug Reactions in Children with Congenital Heart Disease: A Scoping Review.Paediatric drugs · 2024Article
- Real-world effectiveness of intravitreal dexamethasone implants - Comparison between eyes eligible and ineligible for clinical trials and their associated outcomes.Biomedical journal · 2024Article
- Real-World Retrospective Study into the Effects of Oral Semaglutide (As a Switchover or Add-On Therapy) in Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Correlation of effectiveness and tolerability assessments from a pharmacy-based observational study investigating the fixed-dose combination of 400 mg ibuprofen plus 100 mg caffeine for the treatment of acute headache.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Aligning Surgical Practice to an Evidence Base - Past, Present and Future?Malaysian orthopaedic journal · 2022Article
- Impact of the Neck and/or Shoulder Pain on Self-reported Headache Treatment Responses - Results From a Pharmacy-Based Patient Survey.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- Clinical epidemiology and pharmacoepidemiology studies with real-world databases.Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Series B, Physical and biological sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Weighing up sources of evidence is a key skill for clinical decision-makers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies each have advantages and disadvantages, and in both cases perceived weaknesses can be improved through modifications of design and analysis. In the field of pharmacoepidemiology, RCTs are the best way to determine whether an intervention modifies an outcome being studied, largely because randomisation reduces bias and confounding. Observational studies are useful to investigate whether benefits/harms of a treatment are seen in day-to-day clinical practice in a wider group of patients. Although observational studies, even in a small cohort, can provide very useful clinical evidence, they may also be misleading (as shown by subsequent RCTs), in part because of allocation bias. There is an unmet need for clinicians to become well versed in appraising the study design and statistical analysis of observational pharmacoepidemiology (OP) studies, rather like the medical training already offered for RCT evaluation. This is because OP studies are likely to become more common with the computerisation of healthcare records and increasingly contribute to the evidence base available for clinical decision-making. However, when the results of an RCT conflict with the results of an OP study, the findings of the RCT should be preferred, especially if its findings have been repeated elsewhere. Conversely, OP studies that align with the findings of RCTs can provide rich and useful information to complement that generated by RCTs.
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.