Table 2

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 guidelines9.7 (0.7)100
2. To provide a more complete picture of effectiveness, several outcomes across multiple health domains should be compared9.6 (0.5)100
3. Lost to follow-up from the study sample must be reported by the exposure of interest9.7 (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 reported9.7 (0.6)94
5. Covariates should be chosen based on subject matter knowledge and model selection should be justified9.5 (0.7)100
6. The study baseline should be at treatment initiation and a description of how covariate measurements relate to baseline should be included9.5 (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 point9.8 (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 weighting9.3 (1.0)100
9. Sensitivity analyses should be undertaken to explore the influence of assumptions related to missingness, particularly in case of attrition9.6 (0.6)100
10. Authors should prepare a statistical analysis plan in advance9.6 (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.