Real-world research and the role of observational data in the field of gynaecology – a practical review

References

• Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence – what is it and what can it tell us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2293–2297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyer NA, Bryant A, Velentgas P, et al. The GRACE checklist: a validated assessment tool for high quality observational studies of comparative effectiveness. JMCP. 2016;22:1107–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEBM.net [Internet]. Oxford: Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; [cited 2017 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/study-designs/
   Google Scholar
• CHCUK.co.uk [Internet]. Contin: What are pragmatic clinical trials?; 2015. [cited 2017 Mar 17]. Available from: http://www.chcuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-22_Pragmatic-Clinical-Trials_CHCUK1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• NPCNOW.org [Internet]. Washington: National Pharmaceutical Council. Making informed decisions: assessing the strengths and weaknesses of study designs and analytic methods for comparative effectiveness research. Velengtas P, Mohr P, Messner DA, editors. 2012 February [cited 2017 Mar 19]. Available from: http://www.npcnow.org/system/files/research/download/experimental_nonexperimental_study_final.pdf
   Google Scholar
• OUP. Oxford; Oxford University Press. In: Smith PG, Morrow RH, Ross DA, editors. Field Trials of Health Interventions: A Toolbox. 3rd ed.; 2015 Jun 1. Chapter 1, Introduction to field trials of health interventions [cited 2017 Mar 19]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK305510/
   Google Scholar
• Petersen I, Douglas I, Whitaker H. Self controlled case series methods: an alternative to standard epidemiological study designs. BMJ. 2016;354:i4515.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai T, Zheng Y. Evaluating prognostic accuracy of biomarkers in nested case-control studies. Biostatistics. 2012;13:89–100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878–1886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Concato J. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–1892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CEBM.net [Internet]. Oxford: Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; [cited 2017 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/
   Google Scholar
• Hernán MA. With great data comes great responsibility: publishing comparative effectiveness research in epidemiology. Epidemiology. 2011;22:290–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amarasingham R, Audet AM, Bates DW, et al. Consensus statement on electronic health predictive analytics: a guiding framework to address challenges. EGEMS (Wash DC). 2016;4:1163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrews EB, Margulis AV, Tennis P, et al. Opportunities and challenges in using epidemiologic methods to monitor drug safety in the era of large automated health databases. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2014;1:194–205.
   Google Scholar
• Etheredge LM. A rapid-learning health system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26:w107–w118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernán MA, Robins JM. Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;183:758–764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hershman DL, Wright JD. Comparative effectiveness research in oncology methodology: observational data. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4215–4222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaggal VC, Elayavilli RK, Mehrabi S, et al. Toward a learning health-care system – knowledge delivery at the point of care empowered by big data and NLP. Biomed Inform Insights. 2016;8:13–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyer NA. Making observational studies count; shaping the future of comparative effectiveness research. Epidemiology. 2011;22:295–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyer NA, Tunis SR, Berger M, et al. Why observational studies should be among the tools used in comparative effectiveness research. Health Affairs. 2010;29:1818–1825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannaford PC, Iversen L, Macfarlane TV, et al. Mortality among contraceptive pill users: cohort evidence from Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study. BMJ.2010;340:c927
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iversen L, Sivasubramaniam S, Lee AJ, et al. Lifetime cancer risk and combined oral contraceptives: the Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216:580.e1–580.e9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charlton M, Rich-Edwards JW, Colditz GA, et al. Oral contraceptive use and mortality after 36 years of follow-up in the Nurses’ Health Study: prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2014;349:g6356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fournier A, Berrino F, Clavel-Chapelon F. Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;107:103–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadeau C, Fournier A, Mesrine S, et al. Interaction between current vitamin D supplementation and menopausal hormone therapy use on breast cancer risk: evidence from the E3N cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102:966–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virkus RA, Løkkegaard E, Lidegaard Ø, et al. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism in 1.3 million pregnancies: a nationwide prospective cohort. PLoS One. 2014;9:e96495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinger J, Do Minh T, Heinemann K. Impact of estrogen type on cardiovascular safety of combined oral contraceptives. Contraception. 2016;94:328–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cea Soriano L, Asiimwe A, García Rodríguez LA. Prescribing of cyproterone acetate/ethinylestradiol in UK general practice: a retrospective descriptive study using The Health Improvement Network. Contraception. 2017;95:299–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cea Soriano L, Wallander MA, Andersson S, et al. The continuation rates of long-acting reversible contraceptives in UK general practice using data from The Health Improvement Network. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24:52–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikinheimo O, Gissler M, Suhonen S. Age, parity, history of abortion and contraceptive choices affect the risk of repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008;78:149–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tolsgaard MG, Rasmussen MB, Tappert C, et al. Which factors are associated with trainees' confidence in performing obstetric and gynecological ultrasound examinations?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:444–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludvigsson JF, Ström P, Lundholm C, et al. Maternal vaccination against H1N1 influenza and offspring mortality: population based cohort study and sibling design. BMJ. 2015;351:h5585.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RCGPOCS. Oral contraceptives, venous thrombosis, and varicose veins. Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1978;28:393–399.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leung VW, Soon JA, Lynd LD, et al. Population-based evaluation of the effectiveness of two regimens for emergency contraception. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;133:342–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cottreau CM, Ness RB, Modugno F, et al. Endometriosis and its treatment with danazol or lupron in relation to ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:5142–5144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skovlund CW, Mørch LS, Kessing LV, et al. Association of hormonal contraception with depression. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73:1154–1162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado-Rodríguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:635–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernán MA, Hernández-Díaz S, Werler MM, et al. Causal knowledge as a prerequisite for confounding evaluation: an application to birth defects epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;155:176–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salas M, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:981–983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-Merino E, Wallander MA, Andersson S, et al. The reporting and diagnosis of uterine fibroids in the UK: an observational study. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16:45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan NF, Harrison SE, Rose PW. Validity of diagnostic coding within the general practice research database: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60:e128–e136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall GC, Sauer B, Bourke A, et al. Guidelines for good database selection and use in pharmacoepidemiology research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NIHcollaboratory.org [Internet]. Durham: National Institutes of Health Collaboratory. Assessing data quality for healthcare systems data used in clinical research (version 1.0). Zozus MN, Ed Hammond W, Green BB, et al. 2014 [cited 2017 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Products/Assessing-data-quality_V1%200.pdf
   Google Scholar
• García Rodríguez LA, Ruigómez A. Case validation in research using large databases. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60:160–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tate AR, Martin AG, Ali A, et al. Using free text information to explore how and when GPs code a diagnosis of ovarian cancer: an observational study using primary care records of patients with ovarian cancer. BMJ Open. 2011;1:e000025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• AHRQ Publication No. 12(13)-EHC099. Rockville; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. In: Velentgas P, Dreyer NA, Nourjah P, Smith SR, Torchia MM, editors. Developing a protocol for observational comparative effectiveness research: a user’s guide; 2013. [cited 2017 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK126190/
   Google Scholar
• ENCePP.eu [Internet]. London: European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. Checklist for study protocols (revision 3). [cited 2017 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.encepp.eu/standards_and_guidances/checkListProt-ocols.shtml
   Google Scholar
• ENCePP.eu [Internet]. London: European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. Guide on methodological standards in pharmacoepidemiology (Revision 5). EMA/95098/2010. [cited 2017 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.encepp.eu/standards_and_guidances/method-ologicalGuide.shtml
   Google Scholar
• Berger ML, Mamdani M, Atkins D, et al. 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 Health. 2009;12:1044–1052.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox E, Martin BC, Van Staa T, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report – Part II. Value Health. 2009;12:1053–1061.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson ML, Crown W, Martin BC, et al. Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: analytic methods to improve causal inference from nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the ISPOR good research practices for retrospective database analysis task force report – Part III. Value Health. 2009;12:1062–1073.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:344–349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot M, van der Wouden JM, van Hell EA, et al. Evidence-based practice for individuals or groups: let's make a difference. Perspect Med Educ. 2013;2:216–221.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar