Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Clinical Pharmacology: Current Topics and Case Studies pp 109–136Cite as

Observational Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 2583 Accesses

Abstract

When drugs are on the market observational studies are essential tools to further investigate their benefits and harm. Several observational study design types are available. These study design types share a number of common methodological principles, and they all will always include some degree of random error, bias, and confounding. In this chapter we will illustrate design principles, practical applicability, limitations, and discuss critical appraisal of observational studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Medical Research Council (1948) Streptomycin treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. Br Med J 2:769–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cochrane AL (1972) Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections on health services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lewin L (1881) Die Nebenwirkungen Arzneimittel. Pharmakologisch-klinisches Handbuch. Verlag August Hirschwald, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  4. Meyler L (1952) Side effects of drugs. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson S (ed) (2005) Making medicines – a brief history of pharmacy and pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jick H, Vessey MP (1978) Case-control studies of drug induced illness. Am J Epidemiol 107:1–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schneeweiss S, Avorn J (2005) A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol 58:323–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tsang R, Colley L, Lynd LD (2009) Inadequate statistical power to detect clinically significant differences in adverse event rates in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 62:609–616

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF (2009) Case-control studies in pharmacoeconomic research: an overview. PharmacoEconomics 27:627–634

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vandenbroucke JP (2004) When are observational studies as credible as randomized trials? Lancet 363:1728–1731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Aday L (1989) Desiding who will be in the sample. In: Aday L (ed) Designing and conducting health surveys. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  12. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 335:806–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Friedman LM, Furberg C, DeMets DL (1998) Study population. In: Fundamentals of clinical Trials. 3rd ed. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Peters TJ, Eachus JI (1995) Achieving equal probability of selection under various random sampling strategies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 9(2):219–224

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M (2007) STROBE initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 4(10), e297

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Parkinson J, Davies S, Van Staa T (2007) The general practice research database: now and the future. In: Mann R, Andrews E (eds) Pharmacovigilance, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sturkenboom MCJM (2007) Other databases in Europe for the analytic evaluation of drug effects. In: Mann R, Andrews E (eds) Pharmacovigilance, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  18. Stürmer T, Glynn RJ, Rothman KJ, Avorn J, Schneeweiss S (2007) Adjustments for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic database studies using external information. Med Care 45(10 Suppl 2):S158–S165

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Harpe SE (2009) Using secondary data sources for pharmacoepidemiology and outcomes research. Pharmacotherapy 29(2):138–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. West SL, Savitz DA, Koch G, Strom BL, Guess HA, Hartzema A (1995) Recall accuracy for prescription medications: self-report compared with database information. Am J Epidemiol 142(10):1103–1112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Austin PC (2008) The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. J Clin Epidemiol 61:537–545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Tsai EH, Avorn J, Solomon DH (2005) Adjusting for unmeasured confounders in pharmacoepidemiologic claims data using external information: the example of COX2 inhibitors and myocardial infarction. Epidemiology 16:17–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Robinson JG (2008) Models for describing relations among the various statin drugs, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering, pleiotropic effects, and cardiovascular risk. Am J Cardiol 101:1009–1015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ludman A, Venugopal V, Yellon DM, Hausenloy DJ (2009) Statins and cardioprotection-more than just lipid lowering? Pharmacol Ther 122:30–43

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet 359:57–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Härmark L, van Grootheest AC (2008) Pharmacovigilance: methods, recent developments and future perspectives. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 64:743–752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hauben M, Madigan D, Gerrits CM et al (2005) The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Expert Opin Drug Saf 4:929–948

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Szarfman A, Machado SG, O’Neill RT (2002) Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA’s spontaneous reports database. Drug Saf 25:381–392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do. Lancet 359:145–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. The Lancet (2010) Should protocols for observational research be registered? Lancet 375:348

    Google Scholar 

  31. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Cohort studies: marching towards outcomes. Lancet 359:342–345

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shakir SAW (2007) PEM in the UK. In: Mann R, Andrews E (eds) Pharmacovigilance, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  33. Dawber TR (1980) The Framingham study. The epidemiology of atherosclerotic disease. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Borden EK, Lee JG (1982) A methodologic study of post-marketing drug evaluation using a pharmacy-based approach. J Chronic Dis 35(10):803–816

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Black N (1996) Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ 312(7040):1215–1218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 359:248–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Walker AM (1996) Confounding by indication. Epidemiology 7:335–336

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wolozin B, Kellman W, Ruosseau P, Celesia GG, Siegel G (2000) Decreased prevalence of Alzheimer disease associated with 3-hydroxy-3-methyglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors. Arch Neurol 57(10):1439–1443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, Bollen EL, Buckley BM, Cobbe SM, Ford I, Gaw A, Hyland M, Jukema JW, Kamper AM, Macfarlane PW, Meinders AE, Norrie J, Packard CJ, Perry IJ, Stott DJ, Sweeney BJ, Twomey C, Westendorp RG, PROSPER Study Group (2002) Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 360(9346):1623–1630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Wang PS, Levin R, Avorn J (2006) Selective prescribing led to overestimation of the benefits of lipid-lowering drugs. J Clin Epidemiol 59(8):819–828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Glynn RJ, Schneeweiss S, Stürmer T (2006) Indications for propensity scores and review of their use in pharmacoepidemiology. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 98(3):253–259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Lidegaard Ø, Løkkegaard E, Svendsen AL, Agger C (2009) Hormonal contraception and risk of venous thromboembolism: national follow-up study. BMJ 339:b2890

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJM, Rosendaal FR (2009) Effects of oestrogen dose and progestogen type on venous thrombotic risk associated with oral contraceptives: results of the MEGA case-control study. BMJ 339:b2921

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Doll R, Hill AB (1950) Smoking and carcinoma of the lung: preliminary report. BMJ ii:739–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cole P (1979) The evolving case-control study. J Chronic Dis 32:15–27

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/lung-cancer. Accessed 8 July 2015

  47. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/brain-tumours. Accessed 8 July 2015

  48. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2002) Case-control studies: research in reverse. Lancet 359:431–434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Rodrigues LC, Smith PG (1999) Use of the case-control approach in vaccine evaluation: efficacy and adverse effects. Epidemiol Rev 21:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Juurlink DN, Gomes T, Ko DT, Szmitko PE, Austin PC, Tu JV, Henry DA, Kopp A, Mamdani MM (2009) A population-based study of the drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel. CMAJ 180:713–718

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Bhatt DL, Scheiman J, Abraham NS et al (2008) ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 expert consensus document on reducing the gastrointestinal risks of antiplatelet therapy and NSAID use: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents. Circulation 118:1894–1909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC et al (2009) 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (Updating the 2004 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (Updating the 2005 Guideline and 2007 Focused Update). Circulation 120:2271–2306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gilard M, Arnaud B, Cornily JC et al (2008) Influence of omeprazole on the antiplatelet action of clopidogrel associated with aspirin: the randomized, double-blind OCLA (Omeprazole CLopidogrel Aspirin) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 51:256–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Austin PC, Daly PA, Tu JV (2002) A multicenter study of the coding accuracy of hospital discharge administrative data for patients admitted to cardiac care units in Ontario. Am Heart J 144:290–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee DS, Donovan L, Austin PC et al (2005) Comparison of coding of heart failure and comorbidities in administrative and clinical data for use in outcomes research. Med Care 43:182–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kavsak PA, MacRae AR, Lustig V, Bhargava R, Vandersluis R, Palomaki GE, Yerna MY, Jaffe AS (2006) The impact of the ESC/ACC redefinition of myocardial infarction and new sensitive troponin assays on the frequency of acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 152:118–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Romano PS, Mark DH (1994) Bias in the coding of hospital discharge data and its implications for quality assessment. Med Care 32:81–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kiyota Y, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ, Cannuscio CC, Avorn J, Solomon DH (2004) The accuracy of Medicare claims-based diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: estimating positive predictive value based on review of hospital records. Am Heart J 148:99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Carstairs V (2001) Socio-economic factors at area level and their relationship with health. In: Elliot P, Wakefield JC, Best NG, Briggs DJ (eds) Spatial epidemiology, methods and applications. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  60. Eyler JM (1979) Victorian social medicine: the ideas and methods of William Farr. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  61. Smith GD, Shipley M, Rose G (1990) The magnitude and causes of socio-economic differentials in mortality: further evidence from the Whitehall study. J Epidemiol Commun Health 44:265–270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Ben-Shlomo Y, Markowe H, Shipley M, Marmot MG (1992) Stroke risk from alcohol consumption using different control groups. Stroke 23:1093–1098

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lewis JD, Brensinger C (2004) Agreement between GPRD smoking data: a survey of general practitioners and a population-based survey. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 13:437–441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Li XQ, Andersson TB, Ahlstrom M et al (2004) Comparison of inhibitory effects of the proton pump-inhibiting drugs omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole on human cytochrome P450 activities. Drug Metab Dispos 32:821–827

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Maclure M (1991) The case-crossover design: a method for studying transient effects on the risk of acute events. Am J Epidemiol 133:144–153

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schneeweiss S, Stürmer T, Maclure M (1997) Case-crossover and case-time-control designs as alternatives in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 6(Suppl 3):S51–S59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated Sept 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org

  68. Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reves BC on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT- NRSI (24 Sept 2014). A Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies of interventions (ACROBAT- NRSI), Version 1.0.0. Available from http://www.riskofbias.info. Accessed 09/07/2015

  69. Neyarapally GA, Hammad TA, Pinheiro SP, Iyasu S (2012) Review of quality assessment tools for the evaluation of pharmacoepidemiological safety studies. BMJ Open 2, e001362. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001362

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Mayer-Schönberger, Cukier K (2012) Big data: a revolution that transforms how we work, live, and think, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 978-0544002692

    Google Scholar 

  71. Mesgarpour B, Heidinger BH, Schwameis M, Kienbacher C, Walsh C, Schmitz S, Herkner H (2013) Safety of off-label erythropoiesis stimulating agents in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 39(11):1896–1908, PMID: 23928897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Gordis L (2014) Epidemiology, 5th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S (eds) (2013) Textbook of pharmacoepidemiology, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Mayrent SL (eds) (1987) Epidemiology in medicine. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Etminan M, Samii A (2004) Pharmacoepidemiology I: a review of pharmacoepidemiologic study designs. Pharmacotherapy 24(8):964–969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deeks JJ, Dines J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman DG (2003) Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. HTA 7:No 27

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, General Hospital, Vienna, Austria

    Harald Herkner

  2. Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Christoph Male

Authors
  1. Harald Herkner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Male
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harald Herkner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universitätsklinik für Klinische, Medizinische Universität Wien, Wien, Austria

    Markus Müller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Herkner, H., Male, C. (2016). Observational Studies. In: Müller, M. (eds) Clinical Pharmacology: Current Topics and Case Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27347-1_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation