PURPOSE This systematic review aims to characterize the use and trends of instrumental variables (IVs) in oncology research, assess the quality and completeness of IV reporting, and evaluate the agreement and interpretation of IV results in comparison with other techniques used for determining comparative effectiveness in observational research. METHODS We performed a systematic search of observational empirical oncology papers evaluating the comparative effectiveness of cancer treatments using IV methods. EMBASE and MEDLINE (through June 2021) were used for a keyword search; Scopus and Web of Science were used for a citation search. Publication details and characteristics of IV analysis and reporting were extracted from each study to examine the uptake and quality of IV applications. RESULTS Sixty-five empirical papers were identified from February 2001 through June 2021. Geographic variation (50.8%) was the most common type of IV used, and the majority of IV applications constructed binary instruments (53.8%). Concurrent analyses using another non-IV method to adjust for confounding were conducted in 56 (86.2%) studies, 17 (30.4%) of which produced results divergent from IV approaches. We observed a modest uptake of IV methods between 2011 and 2021 together with its dissemination, which remained fairly limited to the United States (76.9%). The quality and completeness of IV reporting varied greatly. The underlying assumptions required for a valid IV analysis were only accounted for in full by 20 (30.8%) studies. CONCLUSION There are limited use and variable quality of IV analyses in oncology. Future research should look to establish standards to better facilitate the quality, transparency, and completeness of IV reporting in this setting.

No abstract

Background: We examined if oncology drug indications with high clinical benefit, as measured by the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), received public reimbursement status faster than those with lower clinical benefit from the time of pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) recommendation.

No abstract