ArticleBasic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology2025
Adjustment for 'Prescriber Type' in Pharmacoepidemiological Analyses.
Article in Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adjustment for 'Prescriber Type' in Pharmacoepidemiological Analyses.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The type of prescriber typically fulfils the criteria for confounding, as it is associated both with the exposure (e.g., prescriber types may differ in their choice of first-line treatment) and with the outcome (as different types of prescribers often treat patients with different disease severity). Additionally, the type of prescriber may correlate with other factors such as treatment adherence, surveillance or coding practices. Although information on the type of prescriber is often available in healthcare registries, it is very rarely employed to control for confounding in pharmacoepidemiological analyses. Here, we argue the potential value in adjusting for the prescriber type in pharmacoepidemiological studies. In an applied example, we conducted a cohort study using Danish healthcare registers of the risk of ischemic stroke associated with the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared to warfarin. We found a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.90-1.01) for DOACs versus warfarin when adjusting only for age and sex. Further adjustment for prescriber type showed an effect of similar magnitude (HR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87-0.98). However, interaction testing and stratified analyses confirmed prescriber type as an effect modifier. Future studies are needed to clarify the role of adjusting for prescriber type across other use cases and healthcare settings.
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.