Standards and guidelines for observational studies: quality is in the eye of the beholder

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 71, Issue , 2016, Pages 3-10

  Morton, Sally C ^a   Costlow, Monica R ^a   Graff, Jennifer S ^b   Dubois, Robert W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b National Pharmaceutical Council   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Observational studies; Standards

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONSENSUS; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARD; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84969530945     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.014     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. [1] Leung, M.Y., Halpern, M.T., West, N.D., Pharmaceutical technology assessment: perspectives from payers. J Manag Care Pharm 18 (2012), 256–264.
2. [2] Holtorf, A.P., Brixner, D., Bellows, B., Keskinaslan, A., Dye, J., Oderda, G., Current and future use of HEOR data in decision-making in the US and emerging markets. Am Health Drug Benefits 5 (2012), 428–438.
3. [3] Brixner, D.I., Holtorf, A., Neumann, P.J., Malone, D.C., Watkins, J.B., Standardizing quality assessment of observational studies for decision making in health care. J Manag Care Pharm 15 (2009), 275–283.
4. [4] Sauerbrei, W., Abrahamowicz, M., Altman, D.G., Le Cessie, S., Carpenter, J., STRengthening analytical thinking for observational studies: the STRATOS initiative. Stat Med 33 (2014), 5413–5432.
5. [5] PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) Methodology Committee. The PCORI methodology report., 2013 Available at www.pcori.org/research-we-support/research-methodology-standards Accessed September 10, 2015.
6. [6] Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009), 264–269.
7. [7] Berger, M.L., Mamdani, M., Atkins, D., Johnson, M.L., 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 Health 12 (2009), 1044–1052.
8. [8] Cox, E., Martin, B.C., Van Staa, T., Garbe, E., Siebert, U., Johnson, M.L., Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report—Part II. Value Health 12 (2009), 1053–1061.
9. [9] Johnson, M.L., Crown, W., Martin, B.C., Dormuth, C.R., Siebert, U., 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 12 (2009), 1062–1073.
10. [10] AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC099 Velentgas, P., Dreyer, N.A., Nourjah, P., Smith, S.R., Torchia, M.M., (eds.) Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: a user's guide, 2013, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126190/ Accessed September 10, 2015.
11. [11] Berger, M.L., Martin, B.C., Husereau, D., Worley, K., Allen, D., Yang, W., et al., On behalf of the, Ispor-Amcp- N. P. C. Retrospective Prospective Observational, CER Task Forces. A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC good practice task force report. Value Health 17 (2014), 143–156.
12. [12] The European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Checklist for study protocols (revision 2). Available at: http://www.encepp.eu/standards_and_guidances/checkListProtocols.shtml. Accessed September 10, 2015.
13. [13] The European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP). Guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology (revision 4). EMA/95098/2010. Available at: http://www.encepp.eu/standards_and_guidances/methodologicalGuide.shtml. Accessed September 10, 2015.
14. [14] Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration:collaboration> Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Guidance for industry: good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiologic assessment (pharmacovigilance guidance). 2005 Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM126834.pdf Accessed September 10, 2015.
15. [15] Dreyer, N.A., Schneeweiss, S., McNeil, B.J., et al. GRACE principles: recognizing high-quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. Am J Manag Care 16 (2010), 467–471.
16. [16] Dreyer, N.A., Velentgas, P., Westrich, K., Dubois, R., The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 20 (2014), 301–308.
17. [17] PCORI (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute) Methodology Committee. The PCORI methodology report., 2013 Available at http://www.pcori.org/assets/2013/11/PCORI-Methodology-Report.pdf Accessed September 10 2015.
18. [18] Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M.R., Brook, R.H., Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 74 (1984), 979–983.
19. [19] Hall, N., Hershey, J., Kessler, L., Stotts, R.C., A model for making project funding decisions at the National Cancer Institute. Oper Res 40 (1992), 1040–1052.
20. [20] Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., (eds.) The Delphi method: techniques and applications [Internet], 2002, Institute of Technology, Newark (NJ): New Jersey Available at http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/ Accessed September 10, 2015.
21. [21] Fleurence, R.L., Meltzer, D.O., Toward a science of research prioritization? The use of value of information by multidisciplinary stakeholder groups. Med Decis Making 33 (2013), 460–462.
22. [22] Fleurence, R.L., Selby, J.V., Odom-Walker, K., Hunt, G., Meltzer, D., Slutsky, J.R., et al. How the patient-centered outcomes research institute is engaging patients and others in shaping its research agenda. Health Aff (Millwood) 32 (2013), 393–400.