Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27928842›Full record

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.

Susanna M Wallerstedt, Mikael Hoffmann

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. 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 · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Susanna M WallerstedtDepartment of Pharmacology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mikael HoffmannThe NEPI foundation - Swedish Network for Pharmacoepidemiology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Prescription DrugsRegistriesTreatment OutcomeDrug PrescriptionsHumansResearch DesignSelection BiasSwedenPrescription Drugseffectivenessevidence-based medicinepharmacoepidemiologysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27928842
PMCPMC5427236

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.