Method | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|
Crude comparison | Simple | Ignores influence of confounding factors, possibly |
 |  | yielding biased estimates |
Matched cohort method | Integrates biologic rationale for matching | May fail to adjust for important confounding factors, |
 | patients; can be used in multiple databases; | possibly yielding biased estimates; compared with |
 | compared with regression method, avoids bias | regression model, event rate over time is not |
 | if event rate is not constant over time | considered |
Model-based matched cohort | Analysis customized to the database; compared | Compared with matched cohort method, chance |
method | with crude or matched cohort method, more | associations may generate biased estimates due to |
 | likely to adjust for important confounding factors; | 'overmatching'; compared with regression model, |
 | compared with regression method, avoids bias | event rate over time is not considered |
 | if event rate is not constant over time |  |
Regression method | Analysis customized to the database; uses all | Complex; compared with matched cohort method, |
 | patient data; considers patterns of events and | chance associations may generate biased estimates |
 | predictors over time and generates most | due to 'overmatching'; biased estimates may also |
 | precise estimates if event rate is constant | result if event rate is not constant over time |
 | over time |  |