|
Academic/Biomedical Research
News & Jobs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions

News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE

Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

Regional News
US & Canada
Biotech Bay
Biotech Beach
Genetown
Pharm Country
BioCapital
BioMidwest
Bio NC
BioForest
Southern Pharm
BioCanada East
US Device
Europe
Asia


Company Profiles

Research Store

Research Events
Post an Event

Real Estate
Business Opportunities
|
|
|
|
|
PLoS By Category | Recent
PLoS Articles
|
|
Non-Clinical Medicine - Pharmacology - Public Health and Epidemiology - Science Policy
|
Case-Only Designs in Pharmacoepidemiology: A Systematic Review
Published:
Friday, November 16, 2012
Author:
Sandra Nordmann et al.
by Sandra Nordmann, Lucie Biard, Philippe Ravaud, Marina Esposito-Farèse, Florence Tubach
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.
More...
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|