Authors’ Reply to Hennessy and Leonard’s Comment on “Desideratum for Evidence-Based Epidemiology”
- 86 Downloads
We appreciate Hennessy and Leonard’s  comments on our paper and their strong support for the need to carefully characterize the performance of epidemiologic methods and analysis choices (which we collectively refer to as analyses). The work performed as part of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) is but a first step in this journey. We particularly appreciate the authors making the point that “Problematically implemented studies do not invalidate the underlying research designs, just those implementations”. We fully agree with this assertion and the importance of beginning to systematically answer questions about what makes analyses problematic. We also share their belief that the empirical assessment of the performance of analyses applied to observational datasets is an essential prerequisite for understanding the reliability of any evidence developed from observational studies.
Every measurement approach is limited in precision and accuracy, and the OMOP...
KeywordsPropensity Score Outcome Definition Empirical Performance Analysis Choice Observational Medical Outcome Partnership
Conflicts of interest
The OMOP was funded by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) through generous contributions from the following: Abbott, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Biogen Idec, Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Research and Development, Lundbeck, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer Inc., Pharmaceutical Research Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Roche, Sanofi-aventis, Schering-Plough Corporation, and Takeda.
Patrick Ryan, Paul Stang and Martijn J. Schuemie are employed by and hold stock/stock options in Janssen Research & Development but have no conflicts of interest related to the content of this letter. J. Marc Overhage is employed by and holds stock/stock options in Siemens Health Services but has no conflicts of interest related to the content of this letter.
- 1.Hennessy S, Leonard CE. Comment on: “Desideratum for evidence-based epidemiology”. Drug Saf. doi: 10.1007/s40264-014-0252-x.
- 2.Madigan D, et al. A systematic statistical approach to evaluating evidence from observational studies. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2014;1:11–39.Google Scholar
- 13.Lash TL, Fox MP, Fink AK. Applying quantitative bias analysis to epidemiologic data. New York: Springer; 2009: p. 94–99.Google Scholar
- 14.Greenland S. Bias analysis. International encyclopedia of statistical science. Berlin: Springer; 2011: p. 145–148.Google Scholar