Cargando…
Case-Only Designs in Pharmacoepidemiology: A Systematic Review
BACKGROUND: 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 obje...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3500300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23166668 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049444 |
_version_ | 1782250096578002944 |
---|---|
author | Nordmann, Sandra Biard, Lucie Ravaud, Philippe Esposito-Farèse, Marina Tubach, Florence |
author_facet | Nordmann, Sandra Biard, Lucie Ravaud, Philippe Esposito-Farèse, Marina Tubach, Florence |
author_sort | Nordmann, Sandra |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: 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. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 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. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: 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 | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3500300 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35003002012-11-19 Case-Only Designs in Pharmacoepidemiology: A Systematic Review Nordmann, Sandra Biard, Lucie Ravaud, Philippe Esposito-Farèse, Marina Tubach, Florence PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 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. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: 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. Public Library of Science 2012-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC3500300/ /pubmed/23166668 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049444 Text en © 2012 Nordmann et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Nordmann, Sandra Biard, Lucie Ravaud, Philippe Esposito-Farèse, Marina Tubach, Florence Case-Only Designs in Pharmacoepidemiology: A Systematic Review |
title | 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_short | Case-Only Designs in Pharmacoepidemiology: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | case-only designs in pharmacoepidemiology: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3500300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23166668 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049444 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nordmannsandra caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT biardlucie caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT ravaudphilippe caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT espositofaresemarina caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview AT tubachflorence caseonlydesignsinpharmacoepidemiologyasystematicreview |