↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs in medication use and traffic safety research

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
A comparison of pharmacoepidemiological study designs in medication use and traffic safety research
Published in
European Journal of Epidemiology, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10654-012-9689-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia Ravera, Nienke van Rein, Johan J. de Gier, Lolkje T. W. de Jong-van den Berg

Abstract

In order to explore how the choice of different study designs could influence the risk estimates, a case-crossover and case-time-control study were carried out and their outcomes were compared with those of a traditional case-control study design that evaluated the association between the exposure to psychotropic medications and the risk of having a motor vehicle accident (MVA). A record-linkage database availing data for 3,786 cases and 18,089 controls during the period 2000-2007 was used. The study designs (i.e., case-crossover and case-time-control) were derived from published literature, and the following psychotropic medicines were examined: antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics and sedatives, and antidepressants, stratified in the two groups selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other antidepressants. Moreover, in order to further investigate the effects of frequency of psychoactive medication exposure on the outcomes of the case-crossover analysis, the data were also stratified by the number of defined daily doses (DDDs) and days of medication use in the 12 months before the motor vehicle accident. Three-thousand seven-hundred fifty-two cases were included in this second part of the case-crossover analysis. The case-crossover design did not show any statistically significant association between psychotropic medication exposure and MVA risk [e.g., SSRIs-Adj. OR = 1.00 (95 % CI: 0.69-1.46); Anxiolytics-Adj. OR = 0.95 (95 % CI: 0.68-1.31)]. The case-time-control design only showed a borderline statistically significant increased traffic accident risk in SSRI users [Adj. OR = 1.16 (95 % CI: 1.01-1.34)]. With respect to the stratifications by the number of DDDs and days of medication use, the analyses showed no increased traffic accident risk associated with the exposure to the selected medication groups [e.g., SSRIs, <20 DDDs-Adj. OR = 0.65 (95 % CI: 0.11-3.87); SSRIs, 16-150 days-Adj. OR = 0.55 (95 % CI: 0.24-1.24)]. In contrast to the above-mentioned results, our recent case-control study found a statistically significant association between traffic accident risk and exposure to anxiolytics [Adj. OR = 1.54 (95 % CI: 1.11-2.15)], and SSRIs [Adj. OR = 2.03 (95 % CI: 1.31-3.14)]. Case-crossover and case-time-control analyses produced different results than those of our recent case-control study (i.e., case-crossover and case-time-control analyses did not show any statistically significant association whereas the case-control analysis showed an increased traffic accident risk in anxiolytic and SSRI users). These divergent results can probably be explained by the differences in the study designs. Given that the case-crossover design is only appropriate for short-term exposures and the case-time-control design is an elaboration of this latter, it can be concluded that, probably, these two approaches are not the most suitable ones to investigate the relation between MVA risk and psychotropic medications, which, on the contrary, are often use chronically.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,916,772
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#706
of 1,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,814
of 163,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 163,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.