Approaches to combat with confounding by indication in observational studies of intended drug effects
- 15 July 2003
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Vol. 12 (7) , 551-558
- https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.883
Abstract
There has been a resurgence of controversy about the usefulness of observational data to study the efficacy of drugs. Nearly every week a researcher makes some criticism of clinical trials or justifies observational research into intended effects, with other researchers offering a contradictory viewpoint. Literature reviews are not useful in this regard because the contradictory studies will not usually be carried out. Some methods are discussed which may have potential utility in the study of intended effects. There may be a marginal role for statistical techniques such as propensity scores and confounder scores. More promising techniques may include ecological analyses, restriction of subjects and blinded prospective review. Because it is currently unknown when the observational study of drug efficacy is possible, we should arguably always carry out a study of the determinants of prescribing first, and possibly consider using the various techniques that are outlined in this article. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
This publication has 58 references indexed in Scilit:
- Antihypertensives and myocardial infarction risk: the modifying effect of history of drug usePharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2001
- Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?BMJ, 2001
- The multiple propensity score for analysis of dose–response relationships in drug safety studiesPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2001
- Invited Commentary: Rare Side Effects of Obstetric Interventions: Are Observational Studies Good Enough?American Journal of Epidemiology, 2001
- What Is the Best Evidence for Making Clinical Decisions?JAMA, 2000
- Design issues for drug epidemiologyBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2000
- One is the loneliest number: Be skeptical of evidence summaries based on limited literature reviewsAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2000
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986
- Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity ScoreJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1984
- The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effectsBiometrika, 1983