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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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
DOI 10.1007/s40471-015-0053-5PMC PMC4778958
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 739

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lund, J. L., Richardson, D. B., & Stürmer, T.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Lund, Jennifer L.
ORCID
Venue
Current Epidemiology Reports
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-09-30
Volume
2
Issue
4
Pages
221-228
ISSN
2196-2995 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40471-015-0053-5
PMC
PMC4778958
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
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
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