Epidemiologic and Statistical Methods for Comparative Effectiveness Research

Heart Failure Clinics

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 29-36

  Hlatky, Mark A ^a   Winkelmayer, Wolfgang C ^a   Setoguchi, Soko ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Epidemiologic methods; Observational data; Randomized trials; Statistical methods

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DATA BASE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; INTERNAL VALIDITY; PROPENSITY SCORE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HEART FAILURE; HUMANS; OBSERVATION; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGISTRIES; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84869499230     PISSN: 15517136     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.hfc.2012.09.007     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Institute of Medicine Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington.
2. Hlatky M.A., Douglas P.S., Cook N.L., et al. Future directions for cardiovascular disease comparative effectiveness research. Report of a workshop sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012, 60:569-580.
3. Normand S.L. Some old and some new statistical tools for outcomes research. Circulation 2008, 118:872-884.
4. Johnson M.L., Crown W., Martin B.C., et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part III. Value Health 2009, 12:1062-1073.
5. Setoguchi S., Glynn R.J., Avorn J., et al. Statins and the risk of lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in the elderly. Circulation 2007, 115:27-33.
6. Hammill B.G., Hernandez A.F., Peterson E.D., et al. Linking inpatient clinical registry data to Medicare claims data using indirect identifiers. Am Heart J 2009, 157:995-1000.
7. Ray W.A. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003, 158:915-920.
8. Rubin D.B. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 2007, 26:20-36.
9. Kurth T., Walker A.M., Glynn R.J., et al. Results of multivariable logistic regression, propensity matching, propensity adjustment, and propensity-based weighting under conditions of nonuniform effect. Am J Epidemiol 2006, 163:262-270.
10. Shah B.R., Laupacis A., Hux J.E., et al. Propensity score methods gave similar results to traditional regression modeling in observational studies: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:550-559.
11. Stürmer T., Joshi M., Glynn R.J., et al. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:437-447.
12. Robins J.M., Hernán M.A., Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 2000, 11:550-560.
13. Mehrotra R., Chiu Y.W., Kalantar-Zadeh K., et al. Similar outcomes with hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis in patients with end-stage renal disease. Arch Intern Med 2011, 171:110-118.
14. Rassen J.A., Brookhart M.A., Glynn R.J., et al. Instrumental variables I: instrumental variables exploit natural variation in nonexperimental data to estimate causal relationships. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:1226-1232.
15. Brookhart M.A., Rassen J.A., Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Effective health care research report No. 22 (Prepared by Brigham and Women's Hospital DEcIDE Center Under Contract No. 290-2005-00161 T03) 2010, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville (MD), Available at:, Accessed July 9, 2011. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
16. McClellan M., McNeil B.J., Newhouse J.P. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. JAMA 1994, 272:859-866.
17. Stukel T.A., Fisher E.S., Wennberg D.E., et al. Analysis of observational studies in the presence of treatment selection bias: effects of invasive cardiac management on AMI survival using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. JAMA 2007, 297:278-285.
18. Johnston S.C., Henneman T., McCulloch C.E., et al. Modeling treatment effects on binary outcomes with grouped-treatment variables and individual covariates. Am J Epidemiol 2002, 156:753-760.