ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025
Potential Bias in Self-Controlled Case Series Design: Impact of Incident Versus Prevalent Scenarios of Exposure and Outcome.
Article 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 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.
- Potential Bias in Self-Controlled Case Series Design: Impact of Incident Versus Prevalent Scenarios of Exposure and Outcome.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess changes in study results in self-controlled case series (SCCS) studies and explore potential biases when applying incident and prevalent exposure and outcome scenarios.
methodsWe used the National Health Insurance Service database in South Korea to conduct two SCCS studies: (1) the risk of retinal detachment following fluoroquinolone use (expected elevated risk), and (2) the risk of acute cardiovascular disease following ranibizumab use (expected null association). Exposure and outcome scenarios were classified based on a washout period of 2 and 1 year, respectively, before the observation period: incident exposure-incident outcome, incident exposure-prevalent outcome, prevalent exposure-incident outcome, and prevalent exposure-prevalent outcome. For each scenario, conditional Poisson regression models, adjusted for time-varying age, estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsIn the fluoroquinolone study, IRRs of retinal detachment were as follows: 1.83 (95% CI 1.72-1.96) for incident exposure-incident outcome, 1.83 (1.71-1.95) for incident exposure-prevalent outcome, 1.71 (1.62-1.80) for prevalent exposure-incident outcome, and 1.70 (1.62-1.79) for prevalent exposure-prevalent outcome scenario. In the ranibizumab study, IRRs of acute cardiovascular disease were 0.91 (0.84-0.99), 0.89 (0.82-0.97), 1.02 (0.94-1.10), and 1.00 (0.93-1.08), respectively.
conclusionsIn prevalent exposure scenarios, IRRs in both studies were attenuated, consistent with prevalent user bias. In prevalent outcome scenarios, where survivor bias was anticipated, no notable shifts in IRRs were observed, possibly due to the high severity and low recurrence of the outcomes associated with the respective exposures. Further consideration of prevalent user and survivor bias is important when interpreting SCCS results. Additional research is needed to quantify the impact of varying exposure and outcome definitions on SCCS estimates.
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.