Scott Blommaert

Mr. Scott Blommaert

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

5Years (2022-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2022 in Value in Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LELouis Everest
Louis Everest
SBScott Blommaert
Scott Blommaert
RCRyan W. Chu
Ryan W. Chu
KCKelvin Chan
Kelvin Chan
APAmbica Parmar
Ambica Parmar

28 January 2022 in Value in Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LELouis Everest
Louis Everest
SBScott Blommaert
Scott Blommaert
DTDongsheng Tu
Dongsheng Tu
JPJoseph L. Pater
Joseph L. Pater
AHAnnette Hay
Annette Hay
KCKelvin Chan
Kelvin Chan

1 May 2023 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BLBrandon Lu
Brandon Lu
STSasha Thomson
Sasha Thomson
SBScott Blommaert
Scott Blommaert
MTMina Tadrous
Mina Tadrous
CECraig C. Earle
Craig C. Earle
KCKelvin Chan
Kelvin Chan
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.

17 March 2022 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
WDWei Fang Fang Dai
Wei Fang Fang Dai
COClaire de Oliveira
Claire de Oliveira
SBScott Blommaert
Scott Blommaert
RPReka E. Pataky
Reka E. Pataky
DTDavid Tran
David Tran
OCon behalf of the CanREValue Collaboration
on behalf of the CanREValue Collaboration
Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8–11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration’s Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada.