Recruitment of a cohort of lamotrigine users through community pharmacists: Differences between patients who gave informed consent and those who did not

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 107-112

  Knoester, P D ^a,d   Belitser, S V ^b   Deckers, C L P ^a,c   Keyser, A ^a   Renier, W O ^a   Egberts, A C G ^b   Hekster, Y A ^a  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c Dutch Epilepsy Clinics Foundation   (Netherlands)

^d ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Community pharmacists; Population based cohort; Recruitment procedure; Selection bias

Indexed keywords

ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT; ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; ANTIMIGRAINE AGENT; LAMOTRIGINE; LITHIUM SALT; NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; PSYCHOTROPIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIPOLAR DISORDER; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DRUG UTILIZATION; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EPILEPSY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIGRAINE; NEUROPATHIC PAIN; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PHARMACY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFUSAL TO PARTICIPATE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ANTICONVULSANTS; COHORT STUDIES; COMMUNITY PHARMACY SERVICES; EPILEPSY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PHARMACISTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; TRIAZINES;

EID: 13844256563     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.992     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Mantel-Teeuwisse AK, Klungel OH, Verschuren WM, Porsius A, de Boer A. Comparison of different methods to estimate prevalence of drug use by using pharmacy records. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54(11): 1181-1186.
2. Monster TB, Janssen WBT, de Jong PE, de Jong-van den Berg LTW. Pharmacy data in epidemiological studies: an easy to obtain and reliable tool. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe 2002; 11: 379-384.
3. Wieringa N, de Graeff P, van der Werf G, Vos R. Cardiovascular drugs: discrepancies in demographics between pre- and post-registration use. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55(7): 537-544.
4. Martin K, Begaud B, Latry P, Miremont-Salame G, Fourrier A, Moore N. Differences between clinical trials and postmarketing use. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 57(1): 86-92.
5. Knoester PD, Belitser SV, Deckers CLP, et al. Patterns of lamotrigine use in daily clinical practice during the the first five years after introduction in the Netherlands. J Clin Pharm Ther 2004; 29: 131-138.
6. Von Korff M, Wagner EH, Saunders K. A chronic disease score from automated pharmacy data. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 197-203.
7. Leufkens HG. Privacy issues in pharmacoepidemiology: the importance of weighing costs and benefits. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safe 2001; 10: 659-662.
8. Reijneveld SA, Stronks K. The impact of response bias on estimates of health care utilization in a metropolitan area: the use of administrative data. Int J Epidemiol 1999; 28: 1134-1140
9. Woolf SH, Rothemic SF, Johnson RE, Marsland DW. Selection bias from requiring patients to give consent to examine data for health services. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9: 1111-1118.
10. Korkeila K, Suominen S, Ahvenaine J, et al. Non-response and related factors in a nation-wide health survey. Eur J Epidemiol 2001; 17: 991-999.
11. Bootsma-van der Wiel A, van Exel E, de Craen AJM, et al. A high response is not essential to prevent selection bias: results from the Leiden 85-plus study. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 1119-1125.
12. Sturkenboom MCJM, Stricker BHC, de Jong-van den Berg LTW, Cornel MC, Wesseling H. The role of pharmacists in the recruitment of a cohort for postmarketing surveillance: a case study of acitretin in The Netherlands. Pharm World Sci 1995; 17(4): 126-132.