...
首页> 外文期刊>British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology >Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions – Systematic review and methodological considerations
【24h】

Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions – Systematic review and methodological considerations

机译:测量药品监管干预的影响 - 系统审查和方法论考虑因素

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Aims Evaluating the public health impact of regulatory interventions is important but there is currently no common methodological approach to guide this evaluation. This systematic review provides a descriptive overview of the analytical methods for impact research. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles with an empirical analysis evaluating the impact of European Union or non‐European Union regulatory actions to safeguard public health published until March 2017. References from systematic reviews and articles from other known sources were added. Regulatory interventions, data sources, outcomes of interest, methodology and key findings were extracted. Results From 1246 screened articles, 229 were eligible for full‐text review and 153 articles in English language were included in the descriptive analysis. Over a third of articles studied analgesics and antidepressants. Interventions most frequently evaluated are regulatory safety communications (28.8%), black box warnings (23.5%) and direct healthcare professional communications (10.5%); 55% of studies measured changes in drug utilization patterns, 27% evaluated health outcomes, and 18% targeted knowledge, behaviour or changes in clinical practice. Unintended consequences like switching therapies or spill‐over effects were rarely evaluated. Two‐thirds used before–after time series and 15.7% before–after cross‐sectional study designs. Various analytical approaches were applied including interrupted time series regression (31.4%), simple descriptive analysis (28.8%) and descriptive analysis with significance tests (23.5%). Conclusion Whilst impact evaluation of pharmacovigilance and product‐specific regulatory interventions is increasing, the marked heterogeneity in study conduct and reporting highlights the need for scientific guidance to ensure robust methodologies are applied and systematic dissemination of results occurs.
机译:旨在评估监管干预的公共卫生影响是重要的,但目前没有常见的方法论方法可以指导这一评估。该系统审查提供了影响研究的分析方法的描述性概述。方法搜索了Medline和Embase,以进行了实证分析,评估了欧盟或非欧盟监管行动在2017年3月举行的公共卫生地发布的公共卫生的影响。增加了来自其他已知来源的系统审查和文章的参考。提取监管干预,数据来源,感兴趣的结果,方法和主要结果。结果来自1246张筛选的文章,229篇有资格进行全面审查,并在描述分析中包含153篇英语文章。在三分之一的文章中研究了镇痛药和抗抑郁药。干预最常评估的是监管安全通信(28.8%),黑匣子警告(23.5%)和直接医疗保健专业通信(10.5%); 55%的研究测量了药物利用模式的变化,27%的评价健康结果,18%的目标知识,行为或临床实践变化。很少评估像切换疗法或溢出效果的意外后果。经过三分之二的时间序列和15.7%之前使用的横断面研究设计。应用各种分析方法,包括中断时间序列回归(31.4%),简单的描述性分析(28.8%)和具有重要意义测试的描述性分析(23.5%)。结论虽然对药物检测和产品特异性监管干预的影响评估正在增加,但研究行为的显着异质性和报告突出了对科学指南的需求,以确保应用鲁棒方法和对结果进行系统的传播。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号