↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating beneficial drug effects in a non‐interventional setting: a review of effectiveness studies based on Swedish Prescribed Drug Register data

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating beneficial drug effects in a non‐interventional setting: a review of effectiveness studies based on Swedish Prescribed Drug Register data
Published in
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, February 2017
DOI 10.1111/bcp.13206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanna M. Wallerstedt, Mikael Hoffmann

Abstract

To describe and assess current effectiveness studies published up to 2014 using Swedish Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR) data. Study characteristics were extracted. Each study was assessed concerning the clinical relevance of the research question, the risk of bias according to a structured checklist, and as to whether its findings contributed to new knowledge. The biases encountered and ways of handling these were retrieved. A total of 24 effectiveness studies were included in the review, the majority on cardiovascular and psychiatric disease (n = 17; 71%). The articles linked data from four (interquartile range: three to four) registers, and were published in 21 different journals with an impact factor ranging from 1.58 to 51.66. All articles had a clinically relevant research question. According to the systematic quality assessments, the overall risk of bias was low in one (4%), moderate in eight (33%) and high in 15 (62%) studies. In all, two (8%) studies were assessed as contributing to new knowledge. Frequently occurring problems were selection bias making the comparison groups incomparable, treatment bias with suboptimal handling of drug exposure and an intention-to-treat approach, and assessment bias including immortal time bias. Good examples of how to handle bias problems included propensity score matching and sensitivity analyses. Although this review illustrates that effectiveness studies based on dispensed drug register data can contribute to new evidence of intended effects of drug treatment in clinical practice, the expectations of such data to provide valuable information need to be tempered due to methodological issues.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 26%
Other 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Researcher 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 4 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Psychology 2 11%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#19,987,113
of 24,561,012 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#4,583
of 5,389 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#322,291
of 429,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#54
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,561,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,389 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 429,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.