Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34007904›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of population data science2021

The changing face of Australian data reforms: impact on pharmacoepidemiology research.

Juliana de Oliveira Costa, Claudia Bruno, Andrea L Schaffer, Smriti Raichand, Emily A Karanges, Sallie-Anne Pearson

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of population data science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Juliana de Oliveira CostaCentre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Claudia BrunoCentre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Andrea L SchafferCentre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Smriti RaichandCentre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Emily A KarangesSchool of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Sallie-Anne PearsonCentre for Big Data Research in Health, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA wealth of data is generated through Australia's universal health care arrangements. However, use of these data has been hampered by different federal and state legislation, privacy concerns and challenges in linking data across jurisdictions. A series of data reforms have been touted to increase population health research capacity in Australia, including pharmacoepidemiology research. Here we catalogued research leveraging Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) data (2014-2018) and discussed these outputs in the context of previously implemented and new data reforms.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of population-based studies using PBS dispensing claims. Independent reviewers screened abstracts of 4,996 articles and 310 full-text manuscripts. We characterised publications according to study population, analytical approach, data sources used, aims and medicines focus.

resultsWe identified 180 studies; 133 used individual-level data, 70 linked PBS dispensing claims with other health data (66 across jurisdictions). Studies using individual-level data focussed on Australians receiving government benefits (87 studies) rather than all PBS-eligible persons. 63 studies examined clinician or patient practices and 33 examined exposure-outcome relationships (27 evaluated medicines safety, 6 evaluated effectiveness). Medicines acting on the nervous and cardiovascular system account for the greatest volume of PBS medicines dispensed and were the most commonly studied (67 and 40 studies, respectively). Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents account for approximately one third of PBS expenditure but represented only 10% of studies in this review.

conclusionsThe studies in this review represent more than a third of all population-based pharmacoepidemiology research published in the last three decades in Australia. Recent data reforms have contributed to this escalating output. However, studies are concentrated among specific subpopulations and medicines classes, and there remains a limited understanding of population benefits and harms derived from medicines use. The current draft Data Availability and Transparency legislation should further bolster efforts in population health research.

Indexed as

PharmacoepidemiologyPharmacyAustraliaHumansUniversal Health Caredrug prescriptionsmedical record linkageobservational studypharmacoepidemiology

Identifiers

PMID34007904
PMCPMC8107783

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.