Evaluating the impact of database heterogeneity on observational study results

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 178, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 645-651

  Madigan, David ^a,i   Ryan, Patrick B ^b,i   Schuemie, Martijn ^c,i   Stang, Paul E ^b,i   Overhage, J Marc ^d,i   Hartzema, Abraham G ^e,i   Suchard, Marc A ^f,g,i   Dumouchel, William ^h,i   Berlin, Jesse A ^b,i  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA HEALTH   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h Oracle Health Sciences   (United States)

ⁱ NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

database; heterogeneity; methods; population characteristics; reproducibility of results; surveillance

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; DATABASE; DRUG; HETEROGENEITY; METHODOLOGY; RISK FACTOR;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DRUG SAFETY; HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POPULATION AND POPULATION RELATED PHENOMENA; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK FACTOR; SELF CONCEPT; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDY DESIGN;

DATABASE; HETEROGENEITY; METHODS; POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURVEILLANCE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); COHORT STUDIES; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATA COLLECTION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG EVALUATION; HUMANS; OBSERVATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RISK; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84881589353     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwt010     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2(8):e124.
2. Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Epidemiology-is it time to call it a day Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(1):1-11.
3. Mayes LC, Horwitz RI, Feinstein AR. A collection of 56 topics with contradictory results in case-control research. Int J Epidemiol. 1988;17(3):680-685.
4. Lockhart PB, Bolger AF, Papapanou PN, et al. Periodontal disease and atherosclerotic vascular disease: Does the evidence support an independent association A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012; 125(20):2520-2544.
5. Dodd S. Debating the evidence: oral contraceptives containing drospirenone and risk of blood clots. Curr Drug Saf. 2011; 6(3):132-133.
6. Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, et al. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet. 2004;364(9450):2021-2029.
7. Young SS, Karr A. Deming, data and observational studies. Significance. 2011;8(3):116-120.
8. Vercellini P, Eskenazi B, Consonni D, et al. Oral contraceptives and risk of endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(2):159-170.
9. Kwok CS, Loke YK. Meta-analysis: the effects of proton pump inhibitors on cardiovascular events and mortality in patients receiving clopidogrel. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31(8):810-823.
10. Deshpande G, Rao S, Patole S, et al. Updated meta-analysis of probiotics for preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm neonates. Pediatrics. 2010;125(5):921-930.
11. Hernandez-Diaz S, Varas-Lorenzo C, Garcia Rodriguez LA. Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs and the risk of acute myocardial infarction. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006; 98(3):266-274.
12. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PloS One. 2008;3(8):e3081.
13. Ryan PB, Madigan D, Stang PE, et al. Empirical assessment of methods for risk identification in healthcare data: results from the experiments of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Stat Med. 2012;31(30):4401-4415.
14. Stang PE, Ryan PB, Racoosin JA, et al. Advancing the science for active surveillance: rationale and design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(9):600-606.
15. Overhage JM, Ryan PB, Reich CG, et al. Validation of a common data model for active safety surveillance research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):54-60.
16. Schneeweiss S, Rassen JA, Glynn RJ, et al. High-dimensional propensity score adjustment in studies of treatment effects using health care claims data. Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):512-522.
17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414): 557-560.
18. Cardwell CR, Abnet CC, Cantwell MM, et al. Exposure to oral bisphosphonates and risk of esophageal cancer. JAMA. 2010;304(6):657-663.
19. Green J, Czanner G, Reeves G, et al. Oral bisphosphonates and risk of cancer of oesophagus, stomach, and colorectum: casecontrol analysis within a UK primary care cohort. BMJ. 2010;341:c4444.
20. Maclure M. Demonstration of deductive meta-analysis: ethanol intake and risk of myocardial infarction. Epidemiol Rev. 1993;15(2):328-351.
21. Thompson SG, Pocock SJ. Can meta-analyses be trusted Lancet. 1991;338(8775):1127-1130.
22. Greenland S. Can meta-analysis be salvaged Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(9):783-787.
23. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012.
24. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(4):323-337.
25. Hennessy S. Use of health care databases in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98(3):311-313.
26. Vandenbroucke JP. Why do the results of randomised and observational studies differ BMJ. 2011;343:d7020.