FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3138195437> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3138195437 endingPage "e043961" @default.
• W3138195437 startingPage "e043961" @default.
• W3138195437 abstract "Objective To determine whether assessment tools for non-randomised studies (NRS) address critical elements that influence the validity of NRS findings for comparative safety and effectiveness of medications. Design Systematic review and Delphi survey. Data sources We searched PubMed, Embase, Google, bibliographies of reviews and websites of influential organisations from inception to November 2019. In parallel, we conducted a Delphi survey among the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology Comparative Effectiveness Research Special Interest Group to identify key methodological challenges for NRS of medications. We created a framework consisting of the reported methodological challenges to evaluate the selected NRS tools. Study selection Checklists or scales assessing NRS. Data extraction Two reviewers extracted general information and content data related to the prespecified framework. Results Of 44 tools reviewed, 48% (n=21) assess multiple NRS designs, while other tools specifically addressed case–control (n=12, 27%) or cohort studies (n=11, 25%) only. Response rate to the Delphi survey was 73% (35 out of 48 content experts), and a consensus was reached in only two rounds. Most tools evaluated methods for selecting study participants (n=43, 98%), although only one addressed selection bias due to depletion of susceptibles (2%). Many tools addressed the measurement of exposure and outcome (n=40, 91%), and measurement and control for confounders (n=40, 91%). Most tools have at least one item/question on design-specific sources of bias (n=40, 91%), but only a few investigate reverse causation (n=8, 18%), detection bias (n=4, 9%), time-related bias (n=3, 7%), lack of new-user design (n=2, 5%) or active comparator design (n=0). Few tools address the appropriateness of statistical analyses (n=15, 34%), methods for assessing internal (n=15, 34%) or external validity (n=11, 25%) and statistical uncertainty in the findings (n=21, 48%). None of the reviewed tools investigated all the methodological domains and subdomains. Conclusions The acknowledgement of major design-specific sources of bias (eg, lack of new-user design, lack of active comparator design, time-related bias, depletion of susceptibles, reverse causation) and statistical assessment of internal and external validity is currently not sufficiently addressed in most of the existing tools. These critical elements should be integrated to systematically investigate the validity of NRS on comparative safety and effectiveness of medications. Systematic review protocol and registration https://osf.io/es65q ." @default.
• W3138195437 created "2021-03-29" @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5001790897 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5002390430 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5022334158 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5026584861 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5042062992 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5044352141 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5048549352 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5052823984 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5061693850 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5069439829 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5074235726 @default.
• W3138195437 creator A5085810547 @default.
• W3138195437 date "2021-03-01" @default.
• W3138195437 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3138195437 title "How well can we assess the validity of non-randomised studies of medications? A systematic review of assessment tools" @default.
• W3138195437 cites W1709885097 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W1969098749 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W1991503413 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2005084763 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2012947453 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2022425641 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2053237747 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2079203156 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2079212138 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2085122871 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2092939529 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2093643940 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2102477199 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2110448405 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2111714917 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2114488753 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2134442033 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2134833483 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2136432146 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2141080329 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2151006952 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2168524487 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2171251365 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2531269403 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2789542135 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2791602881 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2792308249 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2802614347 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2891141194 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2936881110 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2944095634 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W2995118312 @default.
• W3138195437 cites W3112825017 @default.
• W3138195437 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043961" @default.
• W3138195437 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7993210" @default.
• W3138195437 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33762237" @default.
• W3138195437 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3138195437 type Work @default.
• W3138195437 sameAs 3138195437 @default.
• W3138195437 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W3138195437 countsByYear W31381954372021 @default.
• W3138195437 countsByYear W31381954372022 @default.
• W3138195437 countsByYear W31381954372023 @default.
• W3138195437 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5001790897 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5002390430 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5022334158 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5026584861 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5042062992 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5044352141 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5048549352 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5052823984 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5061693850 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5069439829 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5074235726 @default.
• W3138195437 hasAuthorship W3138195437A5085810547 @default.
• W3138195437 hasBestOaLocation W31381954371 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C23276603 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C2426938 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C2777466982 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C2779495148 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C40423286 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C60641444 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConcept C77350462 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConceptScore W3138195437C111919701 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConceptScore W3138195437C126322002 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConceptScore W3138195437C142724271 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConceptScore W3138195437C154945302 @default.
• W3138195437 hasConceptScore W3138195437C15744967 @default.

• next