ReviewPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025
10 Practical Considerations for the Conduct of Multi-National/Database Studies in Pharmacoepidemiology.
Review in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacoepidemiology unpacked: a roadmap for junior researchers.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- 10 Practical Considerations for the Conduct of Multi-National/Database Studies in Pharmacoepidemiology.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMulti-national/database pharmacoepidemiological studies are increasingly used to address questions that require pooled evidence across populations but introduce challenges in design, harmonization, and analysis.
objectiveTo share 10 practical considerations and common pitfalls in planning, executing, and reporting multi-national/database studies, with strategies to mitigate them. APPROACH: Practical guidance article synthesizing experience from multi-national/database projects and literature-based exemplars; no original data collection.
resultsWe summarize ten considerations spanning: protocol development; follow-up time and eligibility assessment; data harmonization (including thorough metadata and master mapping tables); feasibility checks within each source; statistical model diagnostics; and transparent reporting. We illustrate how local clinical practices, coding systems, and reimbursement policies can shape outcomes and interpretation, and we emphasize the need for proactive, consistent communication among collaborators to ensure aligned implementation.
conclusionMulti-national/database studies are complex but feasible with structured planning, clear communication, and proactive problem-solving. Adopting the outlined practices can reduce avoidable heterogeneity and improve the robustness and interpretability of findings.
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.