Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Multiple Comparison Tests

Multiple Comparison Tests

Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Body:Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...

Group Design

Group Design

The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding

Confounding is a critical issue in epidemiological studies, often leading to misleading conclusions about associations between exposures and outcomes. It occurs when the relationship between the exposure and the outcome is mixed with the effects of other factors that influence the outcome. Given that, addressing confounding is of high importance for drawing accurate inferences in research.
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...

Sign Test for Matched Pairs

Sign Test for Matched Pairs

The sign test for matched pairs offers a robust method for comparing two paired samples, often for the effects of an intervention in one of them. This method is very useful in situations where the underlying distribution of the data is unknown. The test compares two related samples—often pre- and post-treatment measurements on the same subjects—to determine if there are significant differences in their median values.
To conduct the sign test, we first calculate the differences in...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Safety of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Longitudinal Analysis.

Drug safety·2026

Same author

Methodological considerations of suicide risk following antipsychotic therapy in treatment-resistant depression.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026

Same author

Developing a Hierarchical Algorithm to Identify Pregnancies and Determine Gestational Age from Nationwide Linked Health Data in Taiwan.

Drug safety·2026

Same author

A Microsimulation Model for Chronic Kidney Disease Progression in Type 2 Diabetes Patients in the United States: Michigan Model for Diabetes-Chronic Kidney Disease Model.

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making·2026

Same author

Lifestyle and Metformin Interventions and Risk of Multimorbidity in Adults With Prediabetes.

JAMA·2026

Same author

Risk of skin cancer from hydrochlorothiazide and other diuretics across races: A global cohort study.

Environmental toxicology and pharmacology·2026

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 7, 2025

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Three-step matching algorithm to enhance between-group comparability and minimize confounding in comparative

Chen-Yi Yang¹, Shihchen Kuo^1,2, Edward Chia-Cheng Lai^1,3,4

¹Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, 1 University Road, Tainan, 701, Taiwan.

Scientific Reports

|January 8, 2022

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

A new three-step matching algorithm improved comparability in a study comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1ra) to sulfonylurea (SU) for type 2 diabetes patients. GLP-1ra use significantly reduced cardiovascular event risk compared to SU.

More Related Videos

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 7, 2025

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

Area of Science:

Pharmacovigilance
Epidemiology
Health Informatics

Background:

Comparative drug effect studies require robust methods to ensure between-group comparability, especially in prevalent new-user designs.
Minimizing time-related bias and adjusting for confounders are critical for reliable findings in observational drug safety research.

Purpose of the Study:

To develop and validate a three-step matching algorithm to enhance between-group comparability in prevalent new-user comparative drug effect studies.
To assess the cardiovascular safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1ra) compared to sulfonylurea (SU) in type 2 diabetes patients.

Main Methods:

A three-step matching algorithm was developed, matching on index date, medication possession ratio considering prior comparator drug exposure, and propensity scores.
The algorithm was applied to a cohort study using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (2003-2015) comparing GLP-1ra and SU in type 2 diabetes patients.
Standardized mean differences were used to assess between-group comparability, with a target of < 0.2 for all baseline characteristics.

Main Results:

The matching algorithm successfully achieved excellent between-group comparability (standardized mean difference < 0.2) for all baseline characteristics.
Patients using GLP-1ra showed a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to those using SU (Hazard Ratio: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.54-0.95; p=0.022).
66% of GLP-1ra users had prior exposure to SU, highlighting the importance of accounting for prior medication use.

Conclusions:

The proposed three-step matching scheme effectively enhances between-group comparability in prevalent new-user cohort studies.
This method improves the reliability and validity of findings in comparative drug safety and effectiveness research.
GLP-1ra demonstrates a favorable cardiovascular safety profile compared to SU in type 2 diabetes management.