ReviewClinical epidemiology2022
Mapping Outcomes and Registries Used in Current Danish Pharmacoepidemiological Research.
Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of cancer-related data from the Danish National patient registry (1994-2025) and the Danish cancer registry (2004-2025): a systematic review.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- Methods Applied to Assess Real-World Effectiveness of Drugs: A Scoping Review.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2026Article
- Total costs of different lines of treatment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Denmark - a real-world data analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Pharmacoepidemiology unpacked: a roadmap for junior researchers.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Opening the black box of registration practice for self-harm and suicide attempts in emergency departments: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Validation of diagnoses of liver disorders in users of systemic azole antifungal medication in Sweden.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Burden of Disease of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy in Denmark - A National Register-Based Study of Individuals with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and their Closest Relatives.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2024Article
- The Value and Deliverables of Medical Affairs: Affiliate Perspectives and Future Expectations.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2023Article
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
Purpose: There is an increasing need for national and international pharmacoepidemiological studies based on high-quality real-world data of which the Danish registries are a valuable source. In lack of a complete overview of which data are used to assess real-world drug safety and effectiveness outcomes, we aimed to map the outcomes, data sources, and the reporting of outcome quality in recent pharmacoepidemiological studies. Methods: We conducted a systematic mapping review of pharmacoepidemiological studies based on Danish registries investigating drug safety and/or effectiveness, published in the period 2018-2019, identified in PubMed and Scopus. Extraction included: Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical level 2 code for drug exposures, outcomes, outcome data sources, and quality of outcomes. Results: Of the 210 included studies, 96% used outcomes categorized as Clinical, 4% utilized outcomes categorized as Society-related, 5% used outcomes categorized as Healthcare cost and utilization, and 3% of the studies applied outcomes categorized as Patient-reported in which the percentages are not mutually exclusive. Diagnosis (66%) and Mortality (38%) were the two most utilized subcategories among those categorized as Clinical outcomes. Danish Health Data Authority and Statistics Denmark registries were the most reported outcome data sources (90%). Ninety-six studies (46%) reported one or more quality parameters related to their outcomes of interest with accuracy/validity being the most reported parameter (22%). Conclusion: The Danish registries support a wide range of outcomes. Across therapeutic areas, most studies investigate traditional clinical outcomes of disease and mortality based on data from a small number of available registries. In contrast, clinical and biochemical databases, despite potentially offering outcomes with high responsiveness, and the high-quality social and healthcare cost registries were rarely used as outcome data sources.
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.