Cited by 739Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

The active comparator, new user study design in pharmacoepidemiology: historical foundations and contemporary application.

Open access
Lund, Jennifer L., Richardson, David B., Stürmer, Til·2015·Current Epidemiology Reports

Abstract

Better understanding of biases related to selective prescribing of, and adherence to, preventive treatments has led to improvements in the design and analysis of pharmacoepidemiologic studies. One influential development has been the "active comparator, new user" study design, which seeks to emulate the design of a head-to-head randomized controlled trial. In this review, we first discuss biases that may affect pharmacoepidemiologic studies and describe their direction and magnitude in a variety of settings. We then present the historical foundations of the active comparator, new user study design and explain how this design conceptually mitigates biases leading to a paradigm shift in pharmacoepidemiology. We offer practical guidance on the implementation of the study design using administrative databases. Finally, we provide an empirical example in which the active comparator, new user study design addresses biases that have previously impeded pharmacoepidemiologic studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40471-015-0053-5

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lund, J. L., Richardson, D. B., & Stürmer, T.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Lund, Jennifer L.
Venue
Current Epidemiology Reports
Published
2015-09-30
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
221-228
ISSN
2196-2995 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1849521086
Cited by
739
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 103 · 2025: 125 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10
FWCI
18.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Epidemiology Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (2k12ca120780-16)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG023178)
  • National Cancer Institute (K12-CA120780)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK124723)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
bias in observational studies, head-to-head comparison, administrative databases

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