SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2017
Evaluating beneficial drug effects in a non-interventional setting: a review of effectiveness studies based on Swedish Prescribed Drug Register data.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Personalised medicine and the decision to withhold chemotherapy in early breast cancer with intermediate risk of recurrence - a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Pooled it
- Evidence synthesis based on non-randomised studies-a critical review of studies leading to conclusions on fall risk properties of loop diuretics/beta-blockers.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2019Pooled it
- Balancing early access with uncertainties in evidence for drugs authorized by prospective case series - systematic review of reimbursement decisions.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Evaluating beneficial drug effects in a non-interventional setting: a review of effectiveness studies based on Swedish Prescribed Drug Register data.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- Efficacy gap between phase II and subsequent phase III studies in oncology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2020Trial
- Manual chart review reveals bisphosphonate exposure misclassification in atypical femur fracture patients: auditing medical records in two international cohorts.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Article
- Quality of clinical studies present in the package inserts of coagulation factors used in the treatment of hemophilia.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo describe and assess current effectiveness studies published up to 2014 using Swedish Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR) data.
methodsStudy characteristics were extracted. Each study was assessed concerning the clinical relevance of the research question, the risk of bias according to a structured checklist, and as to whether its findings contributed to new knowledge. The biases encountered and ways of handling these were retrieved.
resultsA total of 24 effectiveness studies were included in the review, the majority on cardiovascular or psychiatric disease (n = 17; 71%). The articles linked data from four (interquartile range: three to four) registers, and were published in 21 different journals with an impact factor ranging from 1.58 to 51.66. All articles had a clinically relevant research question. According to the systematic quality assessments, the overall risk of bias was low in one (4%), moderate in eight (33%) and high in 15 (62%) studies. Overall, two (8%) studies were assessed as contributing to new knowledge. Frequently occurring problems were selection bias making the comparison groups incomparable, treatment bias with suboptimal handling of drug exposure and an intention-to-treat approach, and assessment bias including immortal time bias. Good examples of how to handle bias problems included propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses.
conclusionAlthough this review illustrates that effectiveness studies based on dispensed drug register data can contribute to new evidence of intended effects of drug treatment in clinical practice, the expectations of such data to provide valuable information need to be tempered due to methodological issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.