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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nordmann, Sandra, Biard, Lucie, Ravaud, Philippe, Esposito-Farèse, Marina, Tubach, Florence
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