↓ Skip to main content

Self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology involving electronic healthcare databases: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology involving electronic healthcare databases: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0278-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nathalie Gault, Johann Castañeda-Sanabria, Yann De Rycke, Sylvie Guillo, Stéphanie Foulon, Florence Tubach

Abstract

Observational studies are widely used in pharmacoepidemiology. Several designs can be used, in particular self-controlled designs (case-crossover and self-controlled case series). These designs offer the advantage of controlling for time-invariant confounders, which may not be collected in electronic healthcare databases. They are particularly useful in pharmacoepidemiology involving healthcare database. To be valid, they require the presence of some characteristics (key validity assumptions), and in such situations, these designs should be preferred. We aimed at describing the appropriate use and reporting of the key validity assumptions in self-controlled design studies. Articles published between January 2011 and December 2014, and describing a self-controlled study design involving electronic healthcare databases were retrieved. The appropriate use (fulfilment of key assumptions) was studied in terms of major (abrupt onset event, rare or recurrent event, and intermittent exposure) and minor assumptions (those for which the design can be adapted). Among the 107 articles describing a self-controlled design, 35/53 (66%) case-crossover studies, and 48/55 (87%) self-controlled case series fulfilled the major validity assumptions for use of the design; 4/35 and 14/48 respectively did not fulfill the minor assumptions. Overall, 31/53 (58%) case-crossover studies and 34/55 (62%) self-controlled case series fulfilled both major and minor assumptions. The reporting of the methodology or the results was appropriate, except for power calculation. Self-controlled designs were not appropriately used in34% and 13% of the articles we reviewed that described a case-crossover or a self-controlled case series design, respectively. We encourage better use of these designs in situations in which major validity assumptions are fulfilled (i.e., for which they are recommended), accounting for situations for which the design can be adapted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 26%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,421,942
of 23,414,653 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#369
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,960
of 422,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#8
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,414,653 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.