Pharmacoepidemiology simulation study practices: A methodological review
Muddiman, R.; Aiello Battan, F. I.; Tazare, J.; Schultze, A.; Boland, F.; Perez, T.; Wei, L.; Walsh, M. E.; Moriarty, F.
Show abstract
PurposeSimulation studies are used in pharmacoepidemiology for evaluating inferential methods in a controlled setting, whereby a known data-generating mechanism allows evaluation of the performance of different approaches and assumptions. This study aimed to review simulation studies performed in pharmacoepidemiology. MethodsWe conducted a review of all papers published in the journal of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (PDS) over the period 2017 to 2024. We extracted data on study characteristics and key simulation choices such as the type of data generating mechanism used, inferential methods tested and simulation size. ResultsAmong 42 simulation studies included, 34 (81%) were informing comparative effectiveness/safety studies. 22 studies (52%) used simulation in the context of a clinical condition, and 36 (86%) used Monte-Carlo simulation. Inputs not derived from empirical data alone (n=22, 52%) or in combination with real-world data sources (n=19, 45%) were most often used for data generation. The complexity of simulations was often relatively low: although 31 studies (74%) generated data based on other covariates, time-dependent covariates (n=3) and effects (n=4) were rarely implemented. Bias was the most often used performance measure (n=26, 62%), although notably 18 studies (43%) did not report uncertainty in the method. ConclusionSimulations contributed a relatively small number of articles (3.2 % of 1320) to PDS over 2017 to 2024. Greater focus on evaluating methods and inferential approaches, using simulation studies that are appropriately complex given clinical realities may be beneficial to the pharmacoepidemiology field.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 94%
- Quantitative bias analysis for mismeasured variables in health research: a review of software tools 94%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Causal Forests versus Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting to adjust for Cluster-Level Confounding: A Parametric and Plasmode Simulation Study based on US Hosptial Electronic Health Record Data 93%
- Pregnancy pharmacoepidemiology: How often are key methodological elements reported in publications? 93%
- Bias amplification of unobserved confounding in pharmacoepidemiological studies using indication-based sampling: there is no free lunch in restricting the sample to those with a particular drug-indication 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 94%
- Clinical Trials in COVID-19 Management & Prevention: A Meta-epidemiological Study examining methodological quality 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Application of observational research methods to real-world studies for rare disease drugs: a scoping review protocol 95%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 94%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 94%
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 94%
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.