Summary Retrospective databases can be useful tools forhealth economic evaluations. They offer largepopulations using real-world information withinrapid and realistic treatment periods, and can an-swer questions related to cost-effectiveness. Nev-ertheless, pharmacoeconomic studies based uponretrospective databases face a variety of threats tothe validity of the inferences drawn from them.The credibility of retrospective database analysesin health economic evaluations must be enhancedby careful study design, elimination of bias, andreporting the results of these studies in a clear, be-lievable, and transparent fashion. References 1 Potosky A, Riley G, Lubitz J, Mentnech R, KesslerL. Potential for cancer related health services usinga linked Medicare tumor registry database. MedCare 1993;31:732–48.2 Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrativedata. Ann Intern Med 1997;127(8 Part 2):665–74.3 The MEDSTAT Group. A guide for states to assistin the collection and analysis of Medicaid man-aged care data. (Prepared for the Health Care Fi-nancing Administration.) No. 500–92–0035. 1997.4 Sackett D. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis1979;32:51–63.5 Andersson F. Why is the pharmaceutical industryinvesting increasing amounts in health economicevaluations? Int J Tech Ass Health Care 1995;11:750–61.6 Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Tech-nology Assessment. Guidelines for Economic Eval-uation of Pharmaceuticals. Ottawa: CanadianCoordinating Office for Health Technology As-sessment, 1997.7 Drake C, Fisher L. Prognostic models and the pro-pensity score. Int J Epidemiol 1995;24:183–7.8 Robins J, Mark S, Newey W. Estimating exposureeffects by modelling the expectation of exposureconditional on confounders. Biometrics 1992; 48:479–95.9 Rosenbaum P, Rubin D. Reducing bias in observa-tional studies using subclassification on the pro-pensity score. J Am Statist Assoc 1984;79:516–24.10 Angrist J. Conditional independence in sample se-lection models. Economic Lett 1997;54:103–12.11 McClellan M, McNeil B, Newhouse J. Does moreintensive treatment of acute myocardial infarctionin the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using in-strumental variables. JAMA 1994;272:859–66.12 McClellan M. Uncertainty, health-care technolo-gies, and health-care choices. The Economics ofHealth and Health Care 1995;85(2):38–44.13 Kennedy P. Violating assumption four: measure-ment errors and autoregression. In: A Guide toEconometrics (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MITPress 1992:134–50.14 Heckman J, Smith J. Assessing the case for socialexperiments. J Economic Perspectives 1995;9:85–110.15 Dowd B, Feldman R, Moscovice I, Wisner C,Bland P, Finch M. An analysis of selectivity bias inthe Medicare AAPCC. Health Care Financing Rev1996;17:35–57.16 Hylan T, Kotsanos J, Anderson J, Brown S, Cop-ley-Merriman C, Egbuonu-Davis L, et al. Compar-ison of a decision analytic model with results froma naturalistic economic clinical trial: an applica-tion to evaluating alternative antidepressants. AmJ Managed Care 1996;2:1211–23.