Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.

<h4>Background</h4>Case-only designs have been used since late 1980's. In these, as opposed to case-control or cohort studies for instance, only cases are required and are self-controlled, eliminating selection biases and confounding related to control subjects, and time-invariant c...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Sandra Nordmann, Lucie Biard, Philippe Ravaud, Marina Esposito-Farèse, Florence Tubach
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/05b3151a10cd4d9b807a108ac673da6c
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:05b3151a10cd4d9b807a108ac673da6c
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:05b3151a10cd4d9b807a108ac673da6c2021-11-18T08:08:29ZCase-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0049444https://doaj.org/article/05b3151a10cd4d9b807a108ac673da6c2012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23166668/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>Case-only designs have been used since late 1980's. In these, as opposed to case-control or cohort studies for instance, only cases are required and are self-controlled, eliminating selection biases and confounding related to control subjects, and time-invariant characteristics. The objectives of this systematic review were to analyze how the two main case-only designs - case-crossover (CC) and self-controlled case series (SCCS) - have been applied and reported in pharmacoepidemiology literature, in terms of applicability assumptions and specificities of these designs.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We systematically selected all reports in this field involving case-only designs from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 15, 2010. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The analysis included 93 reports 50 (54%) of CC and 45 (48%) SCCS, 2 reports combined both designs. In 12 (24%) CC and 18 (40%) SCCS articles, all applicable validity assumptions of the designs were fulfilled, respectively. Fifty (54%) articles (15 CC (30%) and 35 (78%) SCCS) adequately addressed the specificities of the case-only analyses in the way they reported results.<h4>Conclusions/significance</h4>Our systematic review underlines that implementation of CC and SCCS designs needs to be more rigorous with regard to validity assumptions, as well as improvement in results reporting.Sandra NordmannLucie BiardPhilippe RavaudMarina Esposito-FarèseFlorence TubachPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 11, p e49444 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Sandra Nordmann Lucie Biard Philippe Ravaud Marina Esposito-Farèse Florence Tubach Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
description	<h4>Background</h4>Case-only designs have been used since late 1980's. In these, as opposed to case-control or cohort studies for instance, only cases are required and are self-controlled, eliminating selection biases and confounding related to control subjects, and time-invariant characteristics. The objectives of this systematic review were to analyze how the two main case-only designs - case-crossover (CC) and self-controlled case series (SCCS) - have been applied and reported in pharmacoepidemiology literature, in terms of applicability assumptions and specificities of these designs.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We systematically selected all reports in this field involving case-only designs from MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 15, 2010. Data were extracted using a standardized form. The analysis included 93 reports 50 (54%) of CC and 45 (48%) SCCS, 2 reports combined both designs. In 12 (24%) CC and 18 (40%) SCCS articles, all applicable validity assumptions of the designs were fulfilled, respectively. Fifty (54%) articles (15 CC (30%) and 35 (78%) SCCS) adequately addressed the specificities of the case-only analyses in the way they reported results.<h4>Conclusions/significance</h4>Our systematic review underlines that implementation of CC and SCCS designs needs to be more rigorous with regard to validity assumptions, as well as improvement in results reporting.
format	article
author	Sandra Nordmann Lucie Biard Philippe Ravaud Marina Esposito-Farèse Florence Tubach
author_facet	Sandra Nordmann Lucie Biard Philippe Ravaud Marina Esposito-Farèse Florence Tubach
author_sort	Sandra Nordmann
title	Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
title_short	Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
title_full	Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
title_fullStr	Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
title_full_unstemmed	Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
title_sort	case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/05b3151a10cd4d9b807a108ac673da6c
work_keys_str_mv	AT sandranordmann caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT luciebiard caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT philipperavaud caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT marinaespositofarese caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT florencetubach caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview
_version_	1718422148007067648

Case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review.

Ejemplares similares