Uses of real-world data in drug safety and effectiveness studies are often challenged by various sources of bias. We undertook a systematic search of the published literature through September 2020 to evaluate the state of use and utility of negative controls to address bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. Two reviewers independently evaluated study eligibility and abstracted data. Our search identified 184 eligible studies for inclusion. Cohort studies (115, 63%) and administrative data (114, 62%) were, respectively, the most common study design and data type used. Most studies used negative control outcomes (91, 50%), and for most studies the target source of bias was unmeasured confounding (93, 51%). We identified 4 utility domains of negative controls: 1) bias detection (149, 81%), 2) bias correction (16, 9%), 3) P-value calibration (8, 4%), and 4) performance assessment of different methods used in drug safety studies (31, 17%). The most popular methodologies used were the 95% confidence interval and P-value calibration. In addition, we identified 2 reference sets with structured steps to check the causality assumption of the negative control. While negative controls are powerful tools in bias detection, we found many studies lacked checking the underlying assumptions. This article is part of a Special Collection on Pharmacoepidemiology.
Keywords: hidden bias; negative control exposure; negative control outcome; unmeasured confounding.
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.