Variation in methods, results and reporting in electronic health record-based studies evaluating routine care in gout: A systematic review

Abstract

ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review examining the variation in methods, results, reporting and risk of bias in electronic health record (EHR)-based studies evaluating management of a common musculoskeletal disease, gout.MethodsTwo reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for all EHR-based studies published by February 2019 investigating gout pharmacological treatment. Information was extracted on study design, eligibility criteria, definitions, medication usage, effectiveness and safety data, comprehensiveness of reporting (RECORD), and Cochrane risk of bias (registered PROSPERO CRD42017065195).ResultsWe screened 5,603 titles/abstracts, 613 full-texts and selected 75 studies including 1.9M gout patients. Gout diagnosis was defined in 26 ways across the studies, most commonly using a single diagnostic code (n = 31, 41.3%). 48.4% did not specify a disease-free period before ‘incident’ diagnosis. Medication use was suboptimal and varied with disease definition while results regarding effectiveness and safety were broadly similar across studies despite variability in inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness of reporting was variable, ranging from 73% (55/75) appropriately discussing the limitations of EHR data use, to 5% (4/75) reporting on key data cleaning steps. Risk of bias was generally low.ConclusionThe wide variation in case definitions and medication-related analysis among EHR-based studies has implications for reported medication use. This is amplified by variable reporting comprehensiveness and the limited consideration of EHR-relevant biases (e.g. data adequacy) in study assessment tools. We recommend accounting for these biases and performing a sensitivity analysis on case definitions, and suggest changes to assessment tools to foster this.

Changes in ankylosing spondylitis incidence, prevalence and time to diagnosis over two decades

“…Study limitations include those common to routine data-based studies, for example, incomplete and changing coding practices. 33 AS diagnoses were not clinically validated as part of this study, however the AS code N100. was previously validated on GP practice data (72%, PPV; 89% for two AS codes >7 days apart).…”

A data flow process for confidential data and its application in a health research project

“…We engaged data providers to ensure that the protocol provides the necessary practical guidance to produce linkable datasets. This brought transparency to the process, which in turn enabled reproducible reporting of the study population and informs the interpretation of research [51]. A privacy impact assessment, now known as a data protection impact assessment (DPIA), was…”

“…Such work may bring resource cost and delay research access. Researchers should be informed of all data processing steps in order to be able to consider any impact on the statistical properties of the dataset that may bias analyses [51].…”

Identifying COPD in routinely collected electronic health records: a systematic scoping review

“…Although the need to focus on the accuracy of case definitions has been emphasised [2], there is still significant heterogeneity in the definitions used to identify common conditions in routinely collected data [3][4][5]. In this systematic scoping review, we sought to summarise the range of methods used to identify COPD, its severity and phenotypes in EHR, and determine what proportion of case definitions in use have been validated against reference standards.…”