Racquel Jandoc1, Andrea M Burden1, Muhammad Mamdani2, Linda E Lévesque3, Suzanne M Cadarette4. 1. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3M2. 2. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3M2; Applied Health Research Center, La Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 1W8; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3M6. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, 62 Fifth Field Company Lane, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K2L 3N6. 4. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, 144 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3M2. Electronic address: s.cadarette@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the use and reporting of interrupted time series methods in drug utilization research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We completed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and reference lists to identify English language articles through to December 2013 that used interrupted time series methods in drug utilization research. We tabulated the number of studies by publication year and summarized methodological detail. RESULTS: We identified 220 eligible empirical applications since 1984. Only 17 (8%) were published before 2000, and 90 (41%) were published since 2010. Segmented regression was the most commonly applied interrupted time series method (67%). Most studies assessed drug policy changes (51%, n = 112); 22% (n = 48) examined the impact of new evidence, 18% (n = 39) examined safety advisories, and 16% (n = 35) examined quality improvement interventions. Autocorrelation was considered in 66% of studies, 31% reported adjusting for seasonality, and 15% accounted for nonstationarity. CONCLUSION: Use of interrupted time series methods in drug utilization research has increased, particularly in recent years. Despite methodological recommendations, there is large variation in reporting of analytic methods. Developing methodological and reporting standards for interrupted time series analysis is important to improve its application in drug utilization research, and we provide recommendations for consideration.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the use and reporting of interrupted time series methods in drug utilization research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We completed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Web of Science, and reference lists to identify English language articles through to December 2013 that used interrupted time series methods in drug utilization research. We tabulated the number of studies by publication year and summarized methodological detail. RESULTS: We identified 220 eligible empirical applications since 1984. Only 17 (8%) were published before 2000, and 90 (41%) were published since 2010. Segmented regression was the most commonly applied interrupted time series method (67%). Most studies assessed drug policy changes (51%, n = 112); 22% (n = 48) examined the impact of new evidence, 18% (n = 39) examined safety advisories, and 16% (n = 35) examined quality improvement interventions. Autocorrelation was considered in 66% of studies, 31% reported adjusting for seasonality, and 15% accounted for nonstationarity. CONCLUSION: Use of interrupted time series methods in drug utilization research has increased, particularly in recent years. Despite methodological recommendations, there is large variation in reporting of analytic methods. Developing methodological and reporting standards for interrupted time series analysis is important to improve its application in drug utilization research, and we provide recommendations for consideration.
Authors: Alan C Kinlaw; Til Stürmer; Jennifer L Lund; Lars Pedersen; Michael D Kappelman; Julie L Daniels; Trine Frøslev; Christina D Mack; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Pranita D Tamma; Edina Avdic; John F Keenan; Yuan Zhao; Gobind Anand; James Cooper; Rebecca Dezube; Steven Hsu; Sara E Cosgrove Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lauryn P Roth; Jessica N Sanders; Rebecca G Simmons; Holly Bullock; Elizabeth Jacobson; David K Turok Journal: Contraception Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Manu Thakral; Rod L Walker; Kathleen Saunders; Susan M Shortreed; Sascha Dublin; Michael Parchman; Ryan N Hansen; Evette Ludman; Karen J Sherman; Michael Von Korff Journal: Pain Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Jennica Nichols; Baiju R Shah; Priscila Pequeno; Carolyn Gall Casey; Catherine H Yu Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-03-10 Impact factor: 5.128