4.7 Article

Rationale and performances of a data-driven method for computing the duration of pharmacological prescriptions using secondary data sources

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10144-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Karolinska Institute
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF15SA0018404]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The assessment of the duration of pharmacological prescriptions is crucial in pharmacoepidemiologic studies, and the Sessa Empirical Estimator (SEE) is a promising new method for computing prescription duration. The SEE showed good accuracy and sensitivity when compared to simulated and real-world data and outperformed the Researcher-Defined Duration (RDD) method.
The assessment of the duration of pharmacological prescriptions is an important phase in pharmacoepidemiologic studies aiming to investigate persistence, effectiveness or safety of treatments. The Sessa Empirical Estimator (SEE) is a new data-driven method which uses k-means algorithm for computing the duration of pharmacological prescriptions in secondary data sources when this information is missing or incomplete. The SEE was used to compute durations of exposure to pharmacological treatments where simulated and real-world data were used to assess its properties comparing the exposure status extrapolated with the method with the true exposure status available in the simulated and real-world data. Finally, the SEE was also compared to a Researcher-Defined Duration (RDD) method. When using simulated data, the SEE showed accuracy of 96% and sensitivity of 96%, while when using real-world data, the method showed sensitivity ranging from 78.0 (nortriptyline) to 95.1% (propafenone). When compared to the RDD, the method had a lower median sensitivity of 2.29% (interquartile range 1.21-4.11%). The SEE showed good properties and may represent a promising tool to assess exposure status when information on treatment duration is not available.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据