The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Good Research Practices for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Defining, Reporting and Interpreting Nonrandomized Studies of Treatment Effects Using Secondary Data Sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part I
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES Health insurers, physicians, and patients worldwide need information on the comparative effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs in routine care. Nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary databases may supplement the evidence based from randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies. Recognizing the challenges to conducting valid retrospective epidemiologic and health services research studies, a Task Force was formed to develop a guidance document on state of the art approaches to frame research questions and report findings for these studies. METHODS The Task Force was commissioned and a Chair was selected by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Board of Directors in October 2007. This Report, the first of three reported in this issue of the journal, addressed issues of framing the research question and reporting and interpreting findings. RESULTS The Task Force Report proposes four primary characteristics-relevance, specificity, novelty, and feasibility while defining the research question. Recommendations included: the practice of a priori specification of the research question; transparency of prespecified analytical plans, provision of justifications for any subsequent changes in analytical plan, and reporting the results of prespecified plans as well as results from significant modifications, structured abstracts to report findings with scientific neutrality; and reasoned interpretations of findings to help inform policy decisions. CONCLUSIONS Comparative effectiveness research in the form of nonrandomized studies using secondary databases can be designed with rigorous elements and conducted with sophisticated statistical methods to improve causal inference of treatment effects. Standardized reporting and careful interpretation of results can aid policy and decision-making.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 · Cited by 17,796
Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.ad · Cited by 10,766
Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs
Concato, J., Shah, N., & Horwitz, R. I. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200006223422507 · Cited by 3,563
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.08.012 · Cited by 2,698
Moher, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1987 · Cited by 2,545
Rates of hyperkalemia after publication of the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study
Juurlink, D. N., Mamdani, M. M., Lee, D. S., Kopp, A., Austin, P. C., Laupacis, A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040135 · Cited by 1,761
Self-citationSimvastatin with or without Ezetimibe in Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Kastelein, J. J. P., Akdim, F., Stroes, E. S. G., Zwinderman, A. H., Bots, M. L., Stalenhoef, A. F. H., Visseren, F. L. J., Sijbrands, E. J. G., Trip, M. D., Stein, E. A., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0800742 · Cited by 1,241
Drug-Drug Interactions Among Elderly Patients Hospitalized for Drug Toxicity
Juurlink, D. N., Mamdani, M., Kopp, A., Laupacis, A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.13.1652 · Cited by 761
Self-citation
Cited by
A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x · Cited by 1,047
Comparative effectiveness of different treatment pathways for opioid use disorder.
Wakeman, S. E., Larochelle, M. R., Ameli, O., Chaisson, C. E., McPheeters, J. T., Crown, W. H., Azocar, F., & Sanghavi, D. M. (2020) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20622 · Cited by 995
Characterizing treatment pathways at scale using the OHDSI network
Hripcsak, G., Ryan, P. B., Duke, J. D., Shah, N. H., Park, R. W., Huser, V., Suchard, M. A., Schuemie, M. J., DeFalco, F. J., Perotte, A., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1510502113 · Cited by 326
Cox, E., Martin, B. C., Van Staa, T., Garbe, E., Siebert, U., & Johnson, M. L. (2009) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00601.x · Cited by 307
Self-citationJohnson, M. L., Crown, W., Martin, B. C., Dormuth, C. R., & Siebert, U. (2009) · Value in Health · doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00602.x · Cited by 285
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Berger, M. L., Mamdani, M., Atkins, D., & Johnson, M. L.
- Venue
- Value in Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1044-1052
- ISSN
- 1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2153434255
- Cited by
- 409
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 16.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Good Research Practices for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Defining, Reporting and Interpreting Nonrandomized Studies of Treatment Effects Using Secondary Data Sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part I. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00600.x
- The paper
- Berger, M. L., Mamdani, M., Atkins, D., & Johnson, M. L. (2009). Good Research Practices for Comparative Effectiveness Research: Defining, Reporting and Interpreting Nonrandomized Studies of Treatment Effects Using Secondary Data Sources: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report—Part I. Value in Health. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00600.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
