IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208389.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect estimate comparison between the prescription sequence symmetry analysis (PSSA) and parallel group study designs: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Demy L Idema
  • Yuanyuan Wang
  • Michael Biehl
  • Peter L Horvatovich
  • Eelko Hak

Abstract

Prescription sequence symmetry analysis (PSSA), a case-only design introduced in 1996, has been increasingly used to identify unintentional drug effects, and has potential applications as a hypothesis-testing and a hypothesis-generating method, due to its easy application and effective control of time-invariant confounders. The aim of this study is to systematically compare effect estimates from the PSSA to effect estimates from conventional observational parallel group study designs, to assess the validity and constraints of the PSSA study design. We reviewed the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases until February 2016 to identify studies that compared PSSA to a parallel group design. Data from the eligible articles was extracted and analyzed, including making a Bland-Altman plot and calculating the number of discrepancies between the designs. 63 comparisons (from two studies) were included in the review. There was a significant correlation (p

Suggested Citation

  • Demy L Idema & Yuanyuan Wang & Michael Biehl & Peter L Horvatovich & Eelko Hak, 2018. "Effect estimate comparison between the prescription sequence symmetry analysis (PSSA) and parallel group study designs: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208389
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208389
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208389
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208389&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208389?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208389. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.