Interrupted time series analysis in drug utilization research is increasing: systematic review and recommendations
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.116 | 0.288 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".