Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design: Why 6-12 months may not be sufficient

37Citations
Citations of this article
62Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Aims: The purpose of this study was to describe how washout period duration affects the size and accuracy of retrospective incident user cohorts. Materials & methods: MarketScan commercial claims data from 2007 to 2010 were used and included adults with an antihyperlipidemic, antidiabetic or antidepressant claim in 2010. Incident user cohorts using 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-month washouts were created and changes in sample size and incident user misclassification were described. Results & conclusion: The 6- and 12-month washouts excluded 75 and 85% of the samples, respectively. Half of subjects in the 6-month washout cohorts were actually prevalent users, and the 12-month washout period resulted in 30% misclassified. Using common washout periods of 6-12 months may insufficiently address prevalent user bias in large commercial claims databases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Roberts, A. W., Dusetzina, S. B., & Farley, J. F. (2015). Revisiting the washout period in the incident user study design: Why 6-12 months may not be sufficient. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 4(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.14.53

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free