Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 7, 2026

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Self-controlled designs in pharmacoepidemiology involving electronic healthcare databases: a systematic review
Nathalie Gault1,2,3, Johann Castañeda-Sanabria4,5, Yann De Rycke4,5
1APHP, Département d'Epidémiologie Biostatistiques et Recherche Clinique, Hôpital Bichat, 75018, Paris, France. nathalie.gault@aphp.fr.
Background:
Observational studies are widely used in pharmacoepidemiology. Several designs can be used, in particular self-controlled designs (case-crossover and self-controlled case series). These designs offer the advantage of controlling for time-invariant confounders, which may not be collected in electronic healthcare databases. They are particularly useful in pharmacoepidemiology involving healthcare database. To be valid, they require the presence of some characteristics (key validity assumptions), and in such situations, these designs should be preferred. We aimed at describing the appropriate use and reporting of the key validity assumptions in self-controlled design studies.
Methods:
Articles published between January 2011 and December 2014, and describing a self-controlled study design involving electronic healthcare databases were retrieved. The appropriate use (fulfilment of key assumptions) was studied in terms of major (abrupt onset event, rare or recurrent event, and intermittent exposure) and minor assumptions (those for which the design can be adapted).
Results:
Among the 107 articles describing a self-controlled design, 35/53 (66%) case-crossover studies, and 48/55 (87%) self-controlled case series fulfilled the major validity assumptions for use of the design; 4/35 and 14/48 respectively did not fulfill the minor assumptions. Overall, 31/53 (58%) case-crossover studies and 34/55 (62%) self-controlled case series fulfilled both major and minor assumptions. The reporting of the methodology or the results was appropriate, except for power calculation.
Conclusions:
Self-controlled designs were not appropriately used in34% and 13% of the articles we reviewed that described a case-crossover or a self-controlled case series design, respectively. We encourage better use of these designs in situations in which major validity assumptions are fulfilled (i.e., for which they are recommended), accounting for situations for which the design can be adapted.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
04:46'Boden Food Plate': Novel Interactive Web-based Method for the Assessment of Dietary Intake
Published on: September 18, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs
Introduction to Epidemiology
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies