Impact of prescriber nonresponse on patient representativeness

Epidemiology

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 186-190

  Fourrier Réglat, Annie ^a,b,c   Droz Perroteau, Cécile ^a,b   Bénichou, Jacques ^a,d   Depont, Fanny ^a,b   Amouretti, Michel ^b,c   Bégaud, Bernard ^a,b,c   Moride, Yola ^b,e   Blin, Patrick ^b   Moore, Nicholas ^a,b,c  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^c BORDEAUX UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^d ROUEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^e UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CELECOXIB; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; ROFECOXIB;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 39149106085     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31816326e9     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Baumann A, Stieber J, Lowel H. [Nonparticipation as a factor influencing the value of follow-up studies. Results of a telephone 5-year follow-up interview of 55-74-year-old participants of the Augsburg 1989/90 MONICA Survey]. Gesundheitswesen 1997;59(Suppl 1):19 -25.
2. Fejer R, Hartvigsen J, Kyvik KO, et al. The Funen Neck and Chest Pain study: analysing non-response bias by using national vital statistic data. Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21:171-180.
3. Kotaniemi JT, Hassi J, Kataja M, et al. Does non-responder bias have a significant effect on the results in a postal questionnaire study? Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;17:809-817.
4. Hernan MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15:615-625.
5. Depont F, Fourrier A, Merliere Y, et al. The CADEUS study: methods and logistics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:571-580.
6. Gail M, Benichou J. Encyclopedia of Epidemiologic Methods. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
7. Depont F, Fourrier A, Merliere Y, et al. Channelling of COX-2 inhibitors to patients at higher gastrointestinal risk but not at lower cardiovascular risk: the Cox2 inhibitors and tNSAIDs description of users (CADEUS) study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:891-900.
8. Moore N, Pierfitte C, Pehourcq F, et al. Comparison of patient questionnaires, medical records, and plasma assays in assessing exposure to benzodiazepines in elderly subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:445-450.
9. Kasliwal R, Layton D, Harris S, et al. A comparison of reported gastrointestinal and thromboembolic events between rofecoxib and celecoxib using observational data. Drug Saf. 2005;28:803-816.
10. Layton D, Heeley E, Hughes K, et al. Comparison of the incidence rates of thromboembolic events reported for patients prescribed rofecoxib and meloxicam in general practice in England using prescription-event monitoring (PEM) data. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42:1342-1353.
11. Layton D, Heeley E, Hughes K, et al. Comparison of the incidence rates of selected gastrointestinal events reported for patients prescribed rofecoxib and meloxicam in general practice in England using prescription-event monitoring data. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2003;42:622-631.
12. Layton D, Heeley E, Shakir SA. Identification and evaluation of a possible signal of exacerbation of colitis during rofecoxib treatment, using Prescription-Event Monitoring data. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2004;29:171-181.
13. Layton D, Marshall V, Boshier A, et al. Serious skin reactions and selective COX-2 inhibitors: a case series from prescription-event monitoring in England. Drug Saf. 2006;29:687-696.
14. Shahar E, Folsom AR, Jackson R. The effect of nonresponse on prevalence estimates for a referent population: insights from a population-based cohort study. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study Investigators. Ann Epidemiol. 1996;6:498-506.
15. Czernichow S, Flahault A. [Phone prompt or mailed reminder for increasing response rate among investigators? A randomized trial in the Sentinelles network]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2001;49:939-4.
16. Harrison RA, Cock D. Increasing response to a postal survey of sedentary patients - a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN45665423]. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:31.
17. Bootsma-van der Wiel A, van Exel E, de Craen AJ, 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.
18. Partin MR, Malone M, Winnett M, et al. The impact of survey nonresponse bias on conclusions drawn from a mammography intervention trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:867-873.
19. Tickle M, Milsom KM, Blinkhorn AS, et al. Comparing different methods to detect and correct nonresponse bias in postal questionnaire studies. J Public Health Dent. 2003;63:112-118.
20. Stang A, Jockel KH. Studies with low response proportions may be less biased than studies with high response proportions. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:204-210.