EULAR-endorsed points to consider when analysing and reporting comparative effectiveness research with observational data in rheumatology, with levels of agreement
| LoA, mean (SD) | % votes ≥8/10 | |
| 1. Reporting of comparative effectiveness in observational studies must follow the STROBE guidelines | 9.7 (0.7) | 100 |
| 2. To provide a more complete picture of effectiveness, several outcomes across multiple health domains should be compared | 9.6 (0.5) | 100 |
| 3. Lost to follow-up from the study sample must be reported by the exposure of interest | 9.7 (0.5) | 94 |
| 4.The proportion of patients who stop and/or change therapies over time as well as the reasons for treatment discontinuation must be reported | 9.7 (0.6) | 94 |
| 5. Covariates should be chosen based on subject matter knowledge and model selection should be justified | 9.5 (0.7) | 100 |
| 6. The study baseline should be at treatment initiation and a description of how covariate measurements relate to baseline should be included | 9.5 (0.5) | 100 |
| 7. The analysis should be based on all patients starting a treatment and not limited to patients remaining on treatment at a certain time point | 9.8 (0.4) | 100 |
| 8. When treatment discontinuation occurs before the time of outcome assessment, the attrition should be taken into account in the analysis. Consider using multiple imputation techniques and/or causal inference models such as inverse probability weighting | 9.3 (1.0) | 100 |
| 9. Sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to explore the influence of assumptions related to missingness, particularly in case of attrition | 9.6 (0.6) | 100 |
| 10. Authors should prepare a statistical analysis plan in advance | 9.6 (0.7) | 100 |
Numbers in the column ‘LoA’ indicate the mean and SD (in parentheses) of the LoA, as the mean agreement of the task force members on a 0–10 scale.
EULAR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; LoA, level of agreement; STROBE, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology.