Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary health care databases: a scoping review

Authors: Guillermo Prada-Ramallal, Bahi Takkouche, Adolfo Figueiras

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The availability of clinical and therapeutic data drawn from medical records and administrative databases has entailed new opportunities for clinical and epidemiologic research. However, these databases present inherent limitations which may render them prone to new biases. We aimed to conduct a structured review of biases specific to observational clinical studies based on secondary databases, and to propose strategies for the mitigation of those biases.

Methods

Scoping review of the scientific literature published during the period 2000–2018 through an automated search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science, supplemented with manually cross-checking of reference lists. We included opinion essays, methodological reviews, analyses or simulation studies, as well as letters to the editor or retractions, the principal objective of which was to highlight the existence of some type of bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary databases.

Results

A total of 117 articles were included. An increasing trend in the number of publications concerning the potential limitations of secondary databases was observed over time and across medical research disciplines. Confounding was the most reported category of bias (63.2% of articles), followed by selection and measurement biases (47.0% and 46.2% respectively). Confounding by indication (32.5%), unmeasured/residual confounding (28.2%), outcome misclassification (28.2%) and “immortal time” bias (25.6%) were the subcategories most frequently mentioned.

Conclusions

Suboptimal use of secondary databases in pharmacoepidemiologic studies has introduced biases in the studies, which may have led to erroneous conclusions. Methods to mitigate biases are available and must be considered in the design, analysis and interpretation phases of studies using these data sources.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hennessy S. Use of health care databases in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98:311–3.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Schneeweiss S, Avorn J. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323–37.CrossRefPubMed
4.
European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing directive 95/46/EC (general data protection regulation). 2016. http://​eur-lex.​europa.​eu/​eli/​reg/​2016/​679/​oj. Accessed 8 Oct 2018.
5.
6.
Moore TJ, Furberg CD. Electronic health data for postmarket surveillance: a vision not realized. Drug Saf. 2015;38:601–10.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gagne JJ. Restrictive reimbursement policies: bias implications for claims-based drug safety studies. Drug Saf. 2014;37:771–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
van Walraven C, Austin P. Administrative database research has unique characteristics that can risk biased results. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:126–31.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Weiss NS. The new world of data linkages in clinical epidemiology: are we being brave or foolhardy? Epidemiology. 2011;22:292–4.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291–4.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Kim DH, Schneeweiss S. Measuring frailty using claims data for pharmacoepidemiologic studies of mortality in older adults: evidence and recommendations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:891–901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Schneeweiss S, Setoguchi S, Brookhart MA, Kaci L, Wang PS. Assessing residual confounding of the association between antipsychotic medications and risk of death using survey data. CNS Drugs. 2009;23:171–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Strom BL. Methodologic challenges to studying patient safety and comparative effectiveness. Med Care. 2007;45(Suppl 2):S13–5.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Cohen JM, Wood ME, Hernandez-Diaz S, Nordeng H. Agreement between paternal self-reported medication use and records from a national prescription database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018;27:413–21.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Brookhart MA, Stürmer T, Glynn RJ, Rassen J, Schneeweiss S. Confounding control in healthcare database research: challenges and potential approaches. Med Care. 2010;48(Suppl 1):S114–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Arbogast PG, Ray WA. Use of disease risk scores in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18:67–80.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Cepeda MS, Boston R, Farrar JT, Strom BL. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:280–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:1149–56.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Smeeth L, Douglas I, Hubbard R. Commentary: we still need observational studies of drugs––they just need to be better. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1310–1.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Joffe MM. Confounding by indication: the case of calcium channel blockers. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2000;9:37–41.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Brookhart MA, Rassen JA, Schneeweiss S. Instrumental variable methods in comparative safety and effectiveness research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:537–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Witteman JC, D'Agostino RB, Stijnen T, Kannel WB, Cobb JC, de Ridder MA, et al. G–estimation of causal effects: isolated systolic hypertension and cardiovascular death in the Framingham heart study. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148:390–401.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Robins JM, Hernán MA, Brumback B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2000;11:550–60.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15:291–303.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Stürmer T, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Schneeweiss S. Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information. Med Care. 2007;45:S158–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Stürmer T, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Glynn RJ. Treatment effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding: dealing with observations in the tails of the propensity score distribution––a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172:843–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Delaney JA, Suissa S. The case–crossover study design in pharmacoepidemiology. Stat Methods Med Res. 2009;18:53–65.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
34.
Zhang Y, Thamer M, Kaufman J, Cotter D, Hernán MA. Comparative effectiveness of two anemia management strategies for complex elderly dialysis patients. Med Care. 2014;52(Suppl 3):S132–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Glynn RJ, Knight EL, Levin R, Avorn J. Paradoxical relations of drug treatment with mortality in older persons. Epidemiology. 2001;12:682–9.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Fewell Z, Davey Smith G, Sterne JA. The impact of residual and unmeasured confounding in epidemiologic studies: a simulation study. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:646–55.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Shrank WH, Patrick AR, Brookhart MA. Healthy user and related biases in observational studies of preventive interventions: a primer for physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:546–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Stürmer T, Jonsson Funk M, Poole C, Brookhart MA. Nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research using linked healthcare databases. Epidemiology. 2011;22:298–301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Tamim H, Monfared AA, LeLorier J. Application of lag–time into exposure definitions to control for protopathic bias. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:250–8.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Patorno E, Garry EM, Patrick AR, Schneeweiss S, Gillet VG, Zorina O, et al. Addressing limitations in observational studies of the association between glucose–lowering medications and all–cause mortality: a review. Drug Saf. 2015;38:295–310.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Patorno E, Patrick AR, Garry EM, Schneeweiss S, Gillet VG. Bartels, et al. observational studies of the association between glucose–lowering medications and cardiovascular outcomes: addressing methodological limitations. Diabetologia. 2014;57:2237–50.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Hernán MA, Hernández–Díaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15:615–25.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Rebolj Kodre A, Pohar PM. Informative censoring in relative survival. Stat Med. 2013;32:4791–802.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Danaei G, Tavakkoli M, Hernán MA. Bias in observational studies of prevalent users: lessons for comparative effectiveness research from a meta–analysis of statins. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:250–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new–user designs. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158:915–20.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Lund JL, Richardson DB, Stürmer T. The active comparator, new user study design in pharmacoepidemiology: historical foundations and contemporary application. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2015;2:221–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Bayley KB, Belnap T, Savitz L, Masica AL, Shah N, Fleming NS. Challenges in using electronic health record data for CER: experience of 4 learning organizations and solutions applied. Med Care. 2013;51(Suppl 3):S80–6.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Ibrahim JG, Molenberghs G. Missing data methods in longitudinal studies: a review. Test (Madr). 2009;18:1–43.CrossRef
50.
Moodie EE, Delaney JA, Lefebvre G, Platt RW. Missing confounding data in marginal structural models: a comparison of inverse probability weighting and multiple imputation. Int J Biostat. 2008;4:Article 13.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Siddique J, Harel O, Crespi CM. Addressing missing data mechanism uncertainty using multiple-model multiple imputation: application to a longitudinal clinical trial. Ann Appl Stat. 2012;6:1814–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Seaman SR, White IR. Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22:278–9.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Resseguier N, Giorgi R, Paoletti X. Sensitivity analysis when data are missing not-at-random. Epidemiology. 2011;22:282.CrossRefPubMed
54.
de Groot MC, Klungel OH, Leufkens HG, van Dijk L, Grobbee DE, van de Garde EM. Sources of heterogeneity in case–control studies on associations between statins, ACE–inhibitors, and proton pump inhibitors and risk of pneumonia. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014;29:767–75.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Gamble JM, McAlister FA, Johnson JA, Eurich DT. Quantifying the impact of drug exposure misclassification due to restrictive drug coverage in administrative databases: a simulation cohort study. Value Health. 2012;15:191–7.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Kosinski AS, Flanders WD. Evaluating the exposure and disease relationship with adjustment for different types of exposure misclassification: a regression approach. Stat Med. 1999;18:2795–808.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Ali A. Methodological challenges in observational research: a pharmacoepidemiological perspective. Br J Pharm Res. 2013;3:161–75.CrossRef
58.
Takahashi Y, Nishida Y, Asai S. Utilization of health care databases for pharmacoepidemiology. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2012;68:123–9.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Prada-Ramallal G, Takkouche B, Figueiras A. Summarising the evidence for drug safety: a methodological discussion of different meta-analysis approaches. Drug Saf. 2017;40:547–58.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Lin KJ, Schneeweiss S. Considerations for the analysis of longitudinal electronic health records linked to claims data to study the effectiveness and safety of drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100:147–59.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Dokholyan RS, Muhlbaier LH, Falletta JM, Jacobs JP, Shahian D, Haan CK, et al. Regulatory and ethical considerations for linking clinical and administrative databases. Am Heart J. 2009;157:971–82.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Schneeweiss S, Wang PS. Claims data studies of sedative-hypnotics and hip fractures in older people: exploring residual confounding using survey information. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:948–54.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Haneuse S, Bogart A, Jazic I, Westbrook EO, Boudreau D, Theis MK, et al. Learning about missing data mechanisms in electronic health records-based research: a survey-based approach. Epidemiology. 2016;27:82–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
64.
Prada-Ramallal G, Takkouche B, Figueiras A. Diverging conclusions from the same meta-analysis in drug safety: source of data (primary versus secondary) takes a toll. Drug Saf. 2017;40:351–8.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Prada-Ramallal G, Roque F, Herdeiro MT, Takkouche B, Figueiras A. Primary versus secondary source of data in observational studies and heterogeneity in meta-analyses of drug effects: a survey of major medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
66.
Donahue JG, Weiss ST, Livingston JM, Goetsch MA, Greineder DK, Platt R. Inhaled steroids and the risk of hospitalization for asthma. JAMA. 1997;277:887–91.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Rochon PA, Tu JV, Anderson GM, Gurwitz JH, Clark JP, Lau P, et al. Rate of heart failure and 1-year survival for older people receiving low-dose beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2000;356:639–44.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Lévesque LE, Hanley JA, Kezouh A, Suissa S. Problem of immortal time bias in cohort studies: example using statins for preventing progression of diabetes. BMJ. 2010;340:b5087.CrossRefPubMed
69.
70.
Suissa S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:241–9.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Suissa S, Ernst P. Bias in observational study of the effectiveness of nasal corticosteroids in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115:714–9.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Suissa S. Inhaled steroids and mortality in COPD: bias from unaccounted immortal time. Eur Respir J. 2004;23:391–5.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Sin DD, Man SF, Tu JV. Inhaled glucocorticoids in COPD: immortal time bias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;168:126–7.CrossRefPubMed
74.
Pride NB, Vestbo J, Soriano JB, Kiri VA. Inhaled glucocorticoids in COPD: immortal time bias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;168:127.PubMed
75.
Suissa S. Effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: immortal time bias in observational studies. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003;168:49–53.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Mantel N, Byar DP. Evaluation of response–time data involving transient states: an illustration using heart–transplant data. J Am Stat Assoc. 1974;69:81–6.CrossRef
77.
Kiri VA, Mackenzie G. Re: "immortal time bias in pharmacoepidemiology". Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:667–8 author reply 668–9.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Karim ME, Gustafson P, Petkau J, Tremlett H. Long-term benefits and adverse effects of Beta-interferon for multiple sclerosis (BeAMS) study group. Comparison of statistical approaches for dealing with immortal time bias in drug effectiveness studies. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184:325–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.CrossRef
80.
Weinstein RB, Ryan P, Berlin JA, Matcho A, Schuemie M, Swerdel J, et al. Channeling in the use of nonprescription paracetamol and ibuprofen in an electronic medical records database: evidence and implications. Drug Saf. 2017;40:1279–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
81.
Pottegård A, Friis S, Stürmer T, Hallas J, Bahmanyar S. Considerations for pharmacoepidemiological studies of drug-cancer associations. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;122:451–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
82.
Melamed A, Rauh-Hain JA, Schorge JO. Clinical outcomes research in gynecologic oncology. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146:653–60.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Dong YH, Alcusky M, Maio V, Liu J, Liu M, Wu LC, et al. Evidence of potential bias in a comparison of ß blockers and calcium channel blockers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and acute coronary syndrome: results of a multinational study. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012997.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
84.
Bourbeau J, Aaron SD, Barnes NC, Davis KJ, Lacasse Y, Nadeau G. Evaluating the risk of pneumonia with inhaled corticosteroids in COPD: retrospective database studies have their limitations SA. Respir Med. 2017;123:94–7.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Macías Saint-Gerons D, de la Fuente HC, de Andrés TF, Catalá-López F. Future perspective of pharmacoepidemiology in the "big data era" and the growth of information sources. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2016;90:e1–7.PubMed
86.
Hudson M, Tascilar K, Suissa S. Comparative effectiveness research with administrative health data in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2016;12:358–66.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Bérard A, Wisner KL, Hultzsch S, Chambers C. Field studies versus database studies on the risks and benefits of medication use during pregnancy: distinct pieces of the same puzzle. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;60:123–8.CrossRefPubMed
88.
89.
Filion KB, Eberg M, Ernst P. Confounding by drug formulary restriction in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:278–86.CrossRefPubMed
90.
Golozar A, Liu S, Lin JA, Peairs K, Yeh HC. Does metformin reduce cancer risks? Methodologic considerations. Curr Diab Rep. 2016;16:4.CrossRefPubMed
91.
Willis AW. Using administrative data to examine health disparities and outcomes in neurological diseases of the elderly. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2015;15:75.CrossRefPubMed
92.
Swanson SA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Palmsten K, Mogun H, Olfson M, Huybrechts KF. Methodological considerations in assessing the effectiveness of antidepressant medication continuation during pregnancy using administrative data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:934–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
93.
Heinze G, Wallisch C, Kainz A, Hronsky M, Leffondré K, Oberbauer R, et al. Chances and challenges of using routine data collections for renal health care research. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015;30(Suppl 4):iv68–75.CrossRefPubMed
94.
Moulis G, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Palmaro A, Pugnet G, Montastruc JL, Sailler L. French health insurance databases: what interest for medical research? Rev Med Interne. 2015;36:411–7.CrossRefPubMed
95.
Jensen ET, Cook SF, Allen JK, Logie J, Brookhart MA, Kappelman MD, et al. Enrollment factors and bias of disease prevalence estimates in administrative claims data. Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25:519–525.e2.
96.
Funk MJ, Landi SN. Misclassification in administrative claims data: quantifying the impact on treatment effect estimates. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2014;1:175–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
97.
Datta R, Kleinman K, Rifas-Shiman S, Placzek H, Lankiewicz J, Platt R, et al. Confounding by indication affects antimicrobial risk factors for methicillin–resistant Staphylococcus aureus but not vancomycin–resistant enterococci acquisition. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2014;3:19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
98.
99.
Yang X, Chan JC. Metformin and the risk of cancer in type 2 diabetes: methodological challenges and perspectives. Ann Transl Med. 2014;2:52.PubMedPubMedCentral
100.
Zhang J, Curtis JR. Considerations in using registry and health plan data for studying pregnancy in rheumatic diseases. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2014;26:315–20.CrossRefPubMed
101.
Gavrielov-Yusim N, Friger M. Use of administrative medical databases in population-based research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68:283–7.CrossRefPubMed
102.
Paxton C, Niculescu-Mizil A, Saria S. Developing predictive models using electronic medical records: challenges and pitfalls. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2013;2013:1109–15.PubMedPubMedCentral
103.
Gallego B, Dunn AG, Coiera E. Role of electronic health records in comparative effectiveness research. J Comp Eff Res. 2013;2:529–32.CrossRefPubMed
104.
105.
Hersh WR, Weiner MG, Embi PJ, Logan JR, Payne PR, Bernstam EV, et al. Caveats for the use of operational electronic health record data in comparative effectiveness research. Med Care. 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S30–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
106.
107.
Yang X, Weng J. Increased cancer risk with drug use among patients with diabetes: are the biased methods the culprit? J Diabetes Investig. 2012;3:479–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
108.
Hershman DL, Wright JD. Comparative effectiveness research in oncology methodology: observational data. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4215–22.CrossRefPubMed
109.
110.
Kiri VA. A pathway to improved prospective observational post–authorization safety studies. Drug Saf. 2012;35:711–24.CrossRefPubMed
111.
Yang XL, Ma RC, So WY, Kong AP, Xu G, Chan JC. Addressing different biases in analysing drug use on cancer risk in diabetes in non–clinical trial settings––what, why and how? Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14:579–85.CrossRefPubMed
112.
Nelson JC, Cook AJ, Yu O, Dominguez C, Zhao S, Greene SK, et al. Challenges in the design and analysis of sequentially monitored postmarket safety surveillance evaluations using electronic observational health care data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21(Suppl 1):62–71.CrossRefPubMed
113.
Fung V, Brand RJ, Newhouse JP, Hsu J. Using medicare data for comparative effectiveness research: opportunities and challenges. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17:488–96.PubMedPubMedCentral
114.
Zhang J, Yun H, Wright NC, Kilgore M, Saag KG, Delzell E. Potential and pitfalls of using large administrative claims data to study the safety of osteoporosis therapies. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2011;13:273–82.CrossRefPubMed
115.
116.
McNeil JJ, Piccenna L, Ronaldson K, Ioannides-Demos LL. The value of patient-centred registries in phase IV drug surveillance. Pharmaceut Med. 2010;24:281–8.
117.
Ehrenstein V, Sørensen HT, Bakketeig LS, Pedersen L. Medical databases in studies of drug teratogenicity: methodological issues. Clin Epidemiol. 2010;2:37–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
118.
Hudson M, Suissa S. Avoiding common pitfalls in the analysis of observational studies of new treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:805–10.CrossRef
119.
Martin-Latry K, Bégaud B. Pharmacoepidemiological research using French reimbursement databases: yes we can! Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2010;19:256–65.CrossRefPubMed
120.
Giezen TJ, Mantel–Teeuwisse AK, Leufkens HG. Pharmacovigilance of biopharmaceuticals: challenges remain. Drug Saf. 2009;32:811–7.CrossRefPubMed
121.
Harpe SE. Using secondary data sources for pharmacoepidemiology and outcomes research. Pharmacotherapy. 2009;29:138–53.CrossRefPubMed
122.
Giordano SH, Kuo YF, Duan Z, Hortobagyi GN, Freeman J, Goodwin JS. Limits of observational data in determining outcomes from cancer therapy. Cancer. 2008;112:2456–66.CrossRefPubMed
123.
Pigeot I, Ahrens W. Establishment of a pharmacoepidemiological database in Germany: methodological potential, scientific value and practical limitations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008;17:215–23.CrossRefPubMed
124.
Cramer JA, Silverman SL, Gold DT. Methodological considerations in using claims databases to evaluate persistence with bisphosphonates for osteoporosis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2007;23:2369–77.CrossRefPubMed
125.
Terris DD, Litaker DG, Koroukian SM. Health state information derived from secondary databases is affected by multiple sources of bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:734–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
126.
Hughes MD, Williams PL. Challenges in using observational studies to evaluate adverse effects of treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1705–7.CrossRefPubMed
127.
de Vries F, de Vries C, Cooper C, Leufkens B, van Staa TP. Reanalysis of two studies with contrasting results on the association between statin use and fracture risk: the general practice research database. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35:1301–8.CrossRefPubMed
128.
Suissa S. Observational studies of inhaled corticosteroids in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: misconstrued immortal time bias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173:464 author reply 464–5.CrossRefPubMed
129.
Etminan M, Gill S, Fitzgerald M, Samii A. Challenges and opportunities for pharmacoepidemiology in drug-therapy decision making. J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;46:6–9.CrossRefPubMed
130.
131.
Holbrook A, Grootendorst P, Willison D, Goldsmith C, Sebaldt R, Keshavjee K. Can current electronic systems meet drug safety and effectiveness requirements? AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005:335–9.
132.
Schneeweiss S, Wang PS. Association between SSRI use and hip fractures and the effect of residual confounding bias in claims database studies. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004;24:632–8.CrossRefPubMed
133.
Kiri VA, Vestbo J, Pride NB, Soriano JB. Inhaled steroids and mortality in COPD: bias from unaccounted immortal time. Eur Respir J. 2004;24:190–1 author reply 191–2.CrossRefPubMed
134.
Bannwarth B. Gastrointestinal safety of paracetamol: is there any cause for concern? Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2004;3:269–72.CrossRefPubMed
135.
Zhan C, Miller MR. Administrative data based patient safety research: a critical review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(Suppl 2):ii58–63.PubMedPubMedCentral
136.
137.
Sørensen HT, Johnsen SP, Nørgård B. Methodological issues in using prescription and other databases in pharmacoepidemiology. Nor Epidemiol. 2001;11:13–8.
138.
Hallas J. Pharmacoepidemiology – current opportunities and challenges. Nor Epidemiol. 2001;11:7–12.
139.
140.
Cepeda MS, Fife D, Denarié M, Bradford D, Roy S, Yuan Y. Quantification of missing prescriptions in commercial claims databases: results of a cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26:386–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
141.
Camplain R, Kucharska-Newton A, Cuthbertson CC, Wright JD, Alonso A, Heiss G. Misclassification of incident hospitalized and outpatient heart failure in administrative claims data: the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26:421–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
142.
Palmaro A, Moulis G, Despas F, Dupouy J, Lapeyre-Mestre M. Overview of drug data within French health insurance databases and implications for pharmacoepidemiological studies. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2016;30:616–24.CrossRefPubMed
143.
Lanes S, Brown JS, Haynes K, Pollack MF, Walker AM. Identifying health outcomes in healthcare databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:1009–16.CrossRefPubMed
144.
Herrett E, Gallagher AM, Bhaskaran K, Forbes H, Mathur R, van Staa T, et al. Data resource profile: clinical practice research datalink (CPRD). Int J Epidemiol. 2015;44:827–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
145.
Weil G, Motamed C, Eghiaian A, Guye ML, Bourgain JL. The use of a clinical database in an anesthesia unit: focus on its limits. J Clin Monit Comput. 2015;29:163–7.CrossRefPubMed
146.
147.
Lauffenburger JC, Balasubramanian A, Farley JF, Critchlow CW, O'Malley CD, Roth MT, et al. Completeness of prescription information in US commercial claims databases. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:899–906.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
148.
149.
Grimes DA. Epidemiologic research using administrative databases: garbage in, garbage out. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1018–9.CrossRefPubMed
150.
Velthove KJ, Leufkens HG, Souverein PC, Schweizer RC, van Solinge WW. Testing bias in clinical databases: methodological considerations. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2010;7:2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
151.
Oostenbrink R, Moons KG, Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Grobbee DE. Diagnostic research on routine care data: prospects and problems. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:501–6.CrossRefPubMed
152.
Wade RL, Patel JG, Hill JW, De AP, Harrison DJ. Estimation of missed statin prescription use in an administrative claims dataset. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23:936–42.PubMed
153.
Czwikla J, Jobski K, Schink T. The impact of the lookback period and definition of confirmatory events on the identification of incident cancer cases in administrative data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17:122.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
154.
Pauly NJ, Talbert JC, Brown J. Low-cost generic program use by Medicare beneficiaries: implications for medication exposure misclassification in administrative claims data. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2016;22:741–51.PubMedPubMedCentral
155.
Mazzali C, Paganoni AM, Ieva F, Masella C, Maistrello M, Agostoni O, et al. Methodological issues on the use of administrative data in healthcare research: the case of heart failure hospitalizations in Lombardy region, 2000 to 2012. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:234.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
156.
Hampp C, Greene P, Pinheiro SP. Use of prescription drug samples in the USA: a descriptive study with considerations for pharmacoepidemiology. Drug Saf. 2016;39:261–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
157.
Winterstein AG, Kubilis P, Bird S, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Nichols GA, Delaney JA. Misclassification in assessment of diabetogenic risk using electronic health records. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014;23:875–81.PubMedPubMedCentral
158.
Skurtveit S, Selmer R, Tverdal A, Furu K, Nystad W, Handal M. Drug exposure: inclusion of dispensed drugs before pregnancy may lead to underestimation of risk associations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:964–72.CrossRefPubMed
159.
Gamble JM, McAlister FA, Johnson JA, Eurich DT. Restrictive drug coverage policies can induce substantial drug exposure misclassification in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Clin Ther. 2012;34:1379–86.CrossRefPubMed
160.
van Walraven C, Bennett C, Forster AJ. Administrative database research infrequently used validated diagnostic or procedural codes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1054–9.CrossRefPubMed
161.
Hoover KW, Tao G, Kent CK, Aral SO. Epidemiologic research using administrative databases: garbage in, garbage out. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:729 author reply 729–30.CrossRefPubMed
162.
Dore DD, Chaudhry S, Hoffman C, Seeger JD. Stratum-specific positive predictive values of claims for acute pancreatitis among commercial health insurance plan enrollees with diabetes mellitus. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:209–13.CrossRefPubMed
163.
Lanes SF, de Luise C. Bias due to false–positive diagnoses in an automated health insurance claims database. Drug Saf. 2006;29:1069–75.CrossRefPubMed
164.
Ray WA, Thapa PB, Gideon P. Misclassification of current benzodiazepine exposure by use of a single baseline measurement and its effects upon studies of injuries. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002;11:663–9.CrossRefPubMed
165.
Palmaro A, Boucherie Q, Dupouy J, Micallef J, Lapeyre-Mestre M. Immeasurable time bias due to hospitalization in medico-administrative databases: which impact for pharmacoepidemiological studies? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26:544–53.CrossRefPubMed
166.
Targownik LE, Suissa S. Understanding and avoiding immortal-time bias in gastrointestinal observational research. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:1647–50.CrossRefPubMed
167.
Matok I, Azoulay L, Yin H, Suissa S. Immortal time bias in observational studies of drug effects in pregnancy. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2014;100:658–62.CrossRefPubMed
168.
Cook EA, Schneider KM, Chrischilles E, Brooks JM. Accounting for unobservable exposure time bias when using medicare prescription drug data. Medicare Medicaid Res Rev. 2013;3.
169.
Suissa S, Dell'aniello S, Vahey S, Renoux C. Time-window bias in case-control studies: statins and lung cancer. Epidemiology. 2011;22:228–31.CrossRefPubMed
170.
Suissa S. Immeasurable time bias in observational studies of drug effects on mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168:329–35.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies using secondary health care databases: a scoping review
Authors
Guillermo Prada-Ramallal
Bahi Takkouche
Adolfo Figueiras
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0695-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Efficient two-step multivariate random effects meta-analysis of individual participant data for longitudinal clinical trials using mixed effects models

Research article

Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience

Research article

Which design to evaluate complex interventions? Toward a methodological framework through a systematic review

Research article

Towards greater understanding of implementation during systematic reviews of complex healthcare interventions: the framework for implementation transferability applicability reporting (FITAR)

Research Article

Joint model robustness compared with the time-varying covariate Cox model to evaluate the association between a longitudinal marker and a time-to-event endpoint

Research article

A snapshot of pneumonia research activity and collaboration patterns (2001–2015): a global bibliometric analysis