Cargando…

Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates

BACKGROUND: Estimates of prevalence are known to be affected by the design of cross-sectional studies. A pan-European study provided an opportunity to compare the effect of two cross-sectional study designs on estimates of medicines use. METHODS: A Service evaluation survey (SES) and a web-based poi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nellis, Georgi, Lutsar, Irja, Varendi, Heili, Toompere, Karolin, Turner, Mark A, Duncan, Jennifer, Metsvaht, Tuuli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25027048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-89
_version_ 1782327957830762496
author Nellis, Georgi
Lutsar, Irja
Varendi, Heili
Toompere, Karolin
Turner, Mark A
Duncan, Jennifer
Metsvaht, Tuuli
author_facet Nellis, Georgi
Lutsar, Irja
Varendi, Heili
Toompere, Karolin
Turner, Mark A
Duncan, Jennifer
Metsvaht, Tuuli
author_sort Nellis, Georgi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Estimates of prevalence are known to be affected by the design of cross-sectional studies. A pan-European study provided an opportunity to compare the effect of two cross-sectional study designs on estimates of medicines use. METHODS: A Service evaluation survey (SES) and a web-based point-prevalence study (PPS) were conducted as part of a European study of neonatal exposure to excipients. Neonatal units from all European Union countries plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Serbia were invited to participate. All medicines prescribed to neonates were recorded during three-day and one-day study periods in the SES and PPS, respectively. In the PPS individual demographic and prescription data were also collected. To compare the probabilities that a particular medicine would be reported by each study multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models with crossed random effects were applied. The relationship between medicines exposure at the unit and individual levels in the PPS data was assessed using polynomial regression with square root transformation. RESULTS: Of 31 invited countries 20 and 21 with 115 and 89 units joined the SES and PPS, respectively. Out of 5,572,859 live births in invited countries in 2010 a higher proportion was covered by units participating in the SES compared to the PPS (11% vs 6%, respectively; OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.87-1.89). A greater number of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), manufacturers and trade names were registered in the SES compared to the PPS. High correlation between the two studies in frequency of use for each specified API was seen (R(2) = 0.86). The average probability of a department to use a given API was greater in the SES compared to the PPS (OR 2.36; 95% CI 2.05-2.73) with higher frequency of use and longer average duration of prescription further increasing the difference. The polynomial regression model described the correlation between APIs exposure on unit and individual level well (R(2) = 0.93). CONCLUSION: The simple data structure and longer study period of the SES resulted in improved recruitment and higher likelihood of capture for a given API. The frequency of use at the unit level appears a good surrogate of individual exposure rates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4110064
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41100642014-07-25 Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates Nellis, Georgi Lutsar, Irja Varendi, Heili Toompere, Karolin Turner, Mark A Duncan, Jennifer Metsvaht, Tuuli BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Estimates of prevalence are known to be affected by the design of cross-sectional studies. A pan-European study provided an opportunity to compare the effect of two cross-sectional study designs on estimates of medicines use. METHODS: A Service evaluation survey (SES) and a web-based point-prevalence study (PPS) were conducted as part of a European study of neonatal exposure to excipients. Neonatal units from all European Union countries plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Serbia were invited to participate. All medicines prescribed to neonates were recorded during three-day and one-day study periods in the SES and PPS, respectively. In the PPS individual demographic and prescription data were also collected. To compare the probabilities that a particular medicine would be reported by each study multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models with crossed random effects were applied. The relationship between medicines exposure at the unit and individual levels in the PPS data was assessed using polynomial regression with square root transformation. RESULTS: Of 31 invited countries 20 and 21 with 115 and 89 units joined the SES and PPS, respectively. Out of 5,572,859 live births in invited countries in 2010 a higher proportion was covered by units participating in the SES compared to the PPS (11% vs 6%, respectively; OR 1.89; 95% CI 1.87-1.89). A greater number of active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), manufacturers and trade names were registered in the SES compared to the PPS. High correlation between the two studies in frequency of use for each specified API was seen (R(2) = 0.86). The average probability of a department to use a given API was greater in the SES compared to the PPS (OR 2.36; 95% CI 2.05-2.73) with higher frequency of use and longer average duration of prescription further increasing the difference. The polynomial regression model described the correlation between APIs exposure on unit and individual level well (R(2) = 0.93). CONCLUSION: The simple data structure and longer study period of the SES resulted in improved recruitment and higher likelihood of capture for a given API. The frequency of use at the unit level appears a good surrogate of individual exposure rates. BioMed Central 2014-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4110064/ /pubmed/25027048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-89 Text en Copyright © 2014 Nellis et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nellis, Georgi
Lutsar, Irja
Varendi, Heili
Toompere, Karolin
Turner, Mark A
Duncan, Jennifer
Metsvaht, Tuuli
Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
title Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
title_full Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
title_fullStr Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
title_short Comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
title_sort comparison of two alternative study designs in assessment of medicines utilisation in neonates
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110064/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25027048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-89
work_keys_str_mv AT nellisgeorgi comparisonoftwoalternativestudydesignsinassessmentofmedicinesutilisationinneonates
AT lutsarirja comparisonoftwoalternativestudydesignsinassessmentofmedicinesutilisationinneonates
AT varendiheili comparisonoftwoalternativestudydesignsinassessmentofmedicinesutilisationinneonates
AT toomperekarolin comparisonoftwoalternativestudydesignsinassessmentofmedicinesutilisationinneonates
AT turnermarka comparisonoftwoalternativestudydesignsinassessmentofmedicinesutilisationinneonates
AT duncanjennifer comparisonoftwoalternativestudydesignsinassessmentofmedicinesutilisationinneonates
AT metsvahttuuli comparisonoftwoalternativestudydesignsinassessmentofmedicinesutilisationinneonates