Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Data Checks Before Registering Study Protocols for Health Care Database Analyses

Wang, Shirley V., Schneeweiss, Sebastian·2024·JAMA

Abstract

This Viewpoint discusses the challenges involved with secondary health care data collection vs primary data collection and provides a list of suggested data checks before registration of a study protocol using secondary data.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2024.2988

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study protocols, design, and coding algorithms were aligned across all 3 databases and deposited in ClinicalTrials.gov before any inferential outcome analyses were started.

    “The study protocols, design, and coding algorithms were aligned across all 3 databases and deposited in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06914102, NCT06914154, NCT06914141) before any inferential outcome analyses were started.17”
  • The study design and analytic protocols were fully prespecified and publicly registered before outcome analyses, with comprehensive methods and code algorithms available to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

    “Third, the study design and analytic protocols were fully prespecified and publicly registered before outcome analyses, with comprehensive methods and code algorithms available to ensure transparency and reproducibility.17”

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Zarin, 2020, Issues in the registration of database studies., J Clin Epidemiol, 121, 29, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.007 · DOI
  2. Orsini, 2020, Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing—why, what, and how., Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 29, 1504, 10.1002/pds.v29.11 · DOI
  3. Franklin, 2020, Nonrandomized real-world evidence to support regulatory decision making., Clin Pharmacol Ther, 107, 817, 10.1002/cpt.v107.4 · DOI
  4. Wang, 2023, Emulation of randomized clinical trials with nonrandomized database analyses: results of 32 clinical trials., JAMA, 329, 1376, 10.1001/jama.2023.4221 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Wang, 2023, HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of hypothesis evaluating real-world evidence studies on treatment effects: a good practices report of a joint ISPE/ISPOR task force., Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 32, 44, 10.1002/pds.v32.1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, S. V., & Schneeweiss, S.
Affiliations
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Venue
JAMA
Published
2024-05-07
Volume
331
Issue
17
Pages
1445
ISSN
0098-7484
Cited by
17
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review