Registration of Observational Studies: Perspectives from an industry-based epidemiology group

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 20, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1009-1013

  Chavers, Scott ^a   Fife, Daniel ^a   Wacholtz, Mary ^a   Stang, Paul ^a   Berlin, Jesse ^a  

^a JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

Epidemiology; Observational Studies; Policy; Registration

Indexed keywords

DATA COLLECTION METHOD; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; INFORMED CONSENT; NOTE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTRATION;

DRUG INDUSTRY; EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; HUMANS; OBSERVATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 80053235713     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.2221     Document Type: Note

References (29)

1. ClinicalTrials.gov. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2010 [cited 2010 September]; Available from: .
2. ICMJE. 2010.
3. Editors. The registration of observational studies--when metaphors go bad. Epidemiology 2010; 21(5): p. 607-609.
4. Feinstein AR. Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life. Science 1988; 242(4883): p. 1257-1263.
5. Lash TL. Preregistration of study protocols is unlikely to improve the yield from our science, but other strategies might. Epidemiology 2010; 21(5): p. 612-613.
6. Epidemiology AC. Sense of the College: Should Observational Studies be registered? in 2010 American College of Epidemiology: San Francisco, 2010.
7. Poole C. A vision of accessible epidemiology. Epidemiology 2010; 21(5): p. 616-618.
8. Samet JM, To register or not to register. Epidemiology 2010; 21(5): p. 610-611.
9. Takkouche B and Norman G. Meta-analysis protocol registration: sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [but who will guard the guardians?]. Epidemiology 2010; 21(5): p. 614-615.
10. Vandenbroucke JP. Preregistration of epidemiologic studies: an ill-founded mix of ideas. Epidemiology 2010; 21(5): p. 619-620.
11. Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science 1995; 269(5221): p. 164-169.
12. Temple R. Meta-analysis and epidemiologic studies in drug development and postmarketing surveillance. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1999. 281(9): p. 841-844.
13. Ioannidis JP, AB Haidich and Lau J. Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence? BMJ 2001; 322(7291): p. 879-880.
14. Bekelman JE, Li Y and Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 2003. 289(4): p. 454-465.
15. Lexchin J. et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ, 2003; 326(7400): p. 1167-1170.
16. (ICMJE) I.C.o.M.J.E. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals; ethical considerations in the conduct and reporting of research: conflicts of interest. 2009 [cited 2010 September]; Available from: .
17. Kassirer JP and Angell M. The journal's policy on cost-effectiveness analyses. The New England Journal of Medicine 1994; 331(10): 669-670.
18. Tilson H, Cost-Effectiveness Analyses. The New England Journal of Medicine 1995; 332(2): p. 123-125.
19. Services USDHH. Developing a Registry of Patient Registries (RoPR). 2011 [cited 2011 June 10, 2011]; Available from: .
20. Maine. 2010; Available from: .
21. European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals, W. Enhancement of the Scientific Process and Transparency of Observational Epidemiology Studies 2009 [cited 2010; Available from: .
22. Editors, Should protocols for observational research be registered? Lancet 2010; 375(9712): p. 348.
23. Berger ML, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: defining, reporting and interpreting nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report--Part I. Value in Health 2009; 12(8): p. 1044-1052.
24. Gliklich RE DN. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide. (Prepared by Putcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc. dba Outcome] under Contract No. HHSA290200535I TO1.) 2007, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD.
25. ISPE. Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety 2008; 17(2): p. 200-208.
26. ISPOR. ISPOR Good Outcomes Research Practices Index. ISPOR Good Research Practices 2011 [cited 2011 June 10, 2011]; Available from: .
27. Motheral B, et al. A checklist for retrospective database studies--report of the ISPOR Task Force on Retrospective Databases. Value in Health 2003; 6(2): p. 90-97.
28. Enger SM, et al. California Men's Health Study (CMHS): a multiethnic cohort in a managed care setting. BMC Public Health 2006; 6: p. 172-200.
29. Ascherio A, et al.. Hepatitis B vaccination and the risk of multiple sclerosis. The New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(5): p. 327-332.