Publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To measure the rate of non-publication and assess possible publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records.Methods
We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify registered clinical trials of electronic health records and searched the biomedical literature and contacted trial investigators to determine whether the results of the trials were published. Publications were judged as positive, negative, or neutral according to the primary outcome.Results
Seventy-six percent of trials had publications describing trial results; of these, 74% were positive, 21% were neutral, and 4% were negative (harmful). Of unpublished studies for which the investigator responded, 43% were positive, 57% were neutral, and none were negative; the lower rate of positive results was significant (p<0.001).Conclusion
The rate of non-publication in electronic health record studies is similar to that in other biomedical studies. There appears to be a bias toward publication of positive trials in this domain.
SUBMITTER: Vawdrey DK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3662474 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records.
Vawdrey David K DK Hripcsak George G
Journal of biomedical informatics 20120910 1
<h4>Objective</h4>To measure the rate of non-publication and assess possible publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify registered clinical trials of electronic health records and searched the biomedical literature and contacted trial investigators to determine whether the results of the trials were published. Publications were judged as positive, negative, or neutral according to the primary outcome.<h4>Results</h4 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The conduct of clinical trials is increasingly challenging due to greater complexity and governance requirements as well as difficulties with recruitment and retention. Electronic Health Records for Clinical Research (EHR4CR) aims at improving the conduct of trials by using existing routinely collected data, but little is known about stakeholder views on data availability, information governance, and acceptable working practices.Senior figures in healthcare organisations across Europe were provided with a description of the project and structured interviews were subsequently conducted to elicit their views.37 structured interviewees in Germany, UK, Switzerland, and France indicated strong support for the proposed EHR4CR platform. All interviewees reported that using the platform for assessing feasibility would enhance the conduct of clinical trials and the majority also felt it would reduce workloads. Interviewees felt the platform could enhance trial recruitment and adverse event reporting but also felt it could raise either ethical or information governance concerns in their country.There was clear support for EHR4CR and a belief that it could reduce workloads and improve the conduct and quality of trials. However data security, privacy, and information governance issues would need to be carefully managed in the development of the platform.
| S-EPMC4619877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo empirically explore how pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) that used real-world data (RWD) assessed study-specific fitness-for-use.MethodsWe conducted interviews and surveys with PCT teams who used electronic health record (EHR) data to ascertain endpoints. The survey cataloged key concerns about RWD, activities used to assess data fitness-for-use, and related barriers encountered by study teams. Patterns and commonalities across trials were used to develop recommendations for study-specific fitness-for-use assessments.ResultsOf 15 invited trial teams, 7 interviews were conducted. Of 31 invited trials, 15 responded to the survey. Most respondents had prior experience using RWD (93%). Major concerns about EHR data were data reliability, missingness or incompleteness of EHR elements, variation in data quality across study sites, and presence of implausible or incorrect values. Although many PCTs conducted fitness-for-use activities (eg, data quality assessments, 11/14, 79%), less than a quarter did so before choosing a data source. Fitness-for-use activities, findings, and resulting study design changes were not often publically documented. Overall costs and personnel costs were barriers to fitness-for-use assessments.DiscussionThese results support three recommendations for PCTs that use EHR data for endpoint ascertainment. Trials should detail the rationale and plan for study-specific fitness-for-use activities, conduct study-specific fitness-for-use assessments early in the prestudy phase to inform study design changes before the trial begins, and share results of fitness-for-use assessments and description of relevant challenges and facilitators.ConclusionThese recommendations can help researchers and end-users of real-world evidence improve characterization of RWD reliability and relevance in the PCT-specific context.
| S-EPMC9006695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveElectronic health records (EHR) data have become a central data source for clinical research. One concern for using EHR data is that the process through which individuals engage with the health system, and find themselves within EHR data, can be informative. We have termed this process informed presence. In this study we use simulation and real data to assess how the informed presence can impact inference.Materials and methodsWe first simulated a visit process where a series of biomarkers were observed informatively and uninformatively over time. We further compared inference derived from a randomized control trial (ie, uninformative visits) and EHR data (ie, potentially informative visits).ResultsWe find that only when there is both a strong association between the biomarker and the outcome as well as the biomarker and the visit process is there bias. Moreover, once there are some uninformative visits this bias is mitigated. In the data example we find, that when the "true" associations are null, there is no observed bias.DiscussionThese results suggest that an informative visit process can exaggerate an association but cannot induce one. Furthermore, careful study design can, mitigate the potential bias when some noninformative visits are included.ConclusionsWhile there are legitimate concerns regarding biases that "messy" EHR data may induce, the conditions for such biases are extreme and can be accounted for.
| S-EPMC6857502 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe electronic health record (EHR) contains a wealth of clinical data that may be used to streamline the identification of potential clinical trial participants. However, there is little empirical information on site-level facilitators of and barriers to optimal use of EHR systems with respect to trial recruitment.MethodsWe conducted qualitative focus groups and quantitative surveys as part of the EHR Ancillary Study, which is being conducted alongside the multicenter, global, Harmony Outcomes Trial comparing albiglutide to standard care for the prevention of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes. Subject matter experts used findings from focus groups to draft a 20-question survey examining the use of the EHR for participant identification, common site recruitment strategies, and variation in perceived barriers to optimal use of the EHR. The final survey was fielded with 446 site investigators actively enrolling participants in the main trial.ResultsNearly two-thirds of respondents were study coordinators (63.2%), 23.1% were principal investigators, and 13.7% held other research roles. Approximately half of the respondents reported using the EHR to find potential trial participants. Of these, 79.4% reported using EHR searches in conjunction with other recruitment methods, including reviewing of upcoming clinic schedules (75.3%) and contacting past trial participants (71.2%). Important barriers to optimal use of the EHR included the lack of availability of certain research-focused EHR modules and limitations on the ability to contact patients cared for by other providers. Of survey respondents who did not use the EHR to find potential participants, one-quarter reported that the EHR was not accessible in their country; this finding varied from 2.6% of respondents in North America to 50% of respondents in the Asia Pacific.ConclusionsWhile EHR screening was commonly used for recruitment in a cardiovascular outcomes trial, important technical, governance, and regulatory barriers persist. Multifaceted, scalable, and customizable strategies are needed to support the optimal use of the EHR for trial participant identification.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02465515. Registered on 8 June 2015.
| S-EPMC8287813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pragmatic randomised clinical trials could use existing electronic health records (EHRs) to identify trial participants, perform randomisation, and to collect follow-up data. Achieving adequate informed consent in routine care and clinician recruitment have been identified as key barriers to this approach to clinical trials. We propose a model where written informed consent for a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial is obtained in advance by the research team, recorded in the EHR, and then confirmed by the general practitioner (GP) at the time of enrolment. The EHR software then randomly assigns a patient to one of two treatments. Follow-up data is collected in the EHR. Twenty-two of 23 GPs surveyed (96%) were 'definitely' or 'probably' comfortable with confirming consent. Twenty-one out of 23 GPs (91%) were 'definitely' or 'probably' comfortable with a patient being randomised to one of two comparable drugs during a routine consultation. Twenty-two out of 23 GPs (96%) were 'definitely' or 'probably' comfortable with allowing the electronic system to randomise a patient to drug A or drug B and generate a prescription. Ten out of 23 GPs (43%) identified time constraints as the main hurdle to conducting this sort of research in the primary care setting. On average, it was felt that 6.5 min, in addition to a usual consult, would be acceptable to complete enrolment. Our survey found this model of a comparative effectiveness trial to be acceptable to the majority of GPs.
| S-EPMC5956547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe rate of diabetic complication progression varies across individuals and understanding factors that alter the rate of complication progression may uncover new clinical interventions for personalized diabetes management.Materials and methodsWe explore how various machine learning (ML) models and types of electronic health records (EHRs) can predict fast versus slow onset of neuropathy, nephropathy, ocular disease, or cardiovascular disease using only patient data collected prior to diabetes diagnosis.ResultsWe find that optimized random forest models performed best to accurately predict the diagnosis of a diabetic complication, with the most effective model distinguishing between fast versus slow nephropathy (AUROC = 0.75). Using all data sets combined allowed for the highest model predictive performance, and social history or laboratory alone were most predictive. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) model interpretation allowed for exploration of predictors of fast and slow complication diagnosis, including underlying biases present in the EHR. Patients in the fast group had more medical visits, incurring a potential informed decision bias.DiscussionOur study is unique in the realm of ML studies as it leverages SHAP as a starting point to explore patient markers not routinely used in diabetes monitoring. A mix of both bias and biological processes is likely present in influencing a model's ability to distinguish between groups.ConclusionOverall, model interpretation is a critical step in evaluating validity of a user-intended endpoint for a model when using EHR data, and predictors affected by bias and those driven by biologic processes should be equally recognized.
| S-EPMC9360778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Individualized treatment rules (ITRs) tailor medical treatments according to patient-specific characteristics in order to optimize patient outcomes. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used to infer valid ITRs using statistical and machine learning methods. However, RCTs are usually conducted under specific inclusion/exclusion criteria, thus limiting their generalizability to a broader patient population in real-world practice settings. Because electronic health records (EHRs) document treatment prescriptions in the real world, transferring information in EHRs to RCTs, if done appropriately, could potentially improve the performance of ITRs, in terms of precision and generalizability. In this work, we propose a new domain adaptation method to learn ITRs by incorporating information from EHRs. Unless we assume that there is no unmeasured confounding in EHRs, we cannot directly learn the optimal ITR from the combined EHR and RCT data. Instead, we first pretrain "super" features from EHRs that summarize physician treatment decisions and patient observed benefits in the real world, as these are likely to be informative of the optimal ITRs. We then augment the feature space of the RCT and learn the optimal ITRs by stratifying by super features using subjects enrolled in RCT. We adopt Q-learning and a modified matched-learning algorithm for estimation. We present heuristic justification of our method and conduct simulation studies to demonstrate the performance of super features. Finally, we apply our method to transfer information learned from EHRs of patients with type 2 diabetes to learn individualized insulin therapies from RCT data.
| S-EPMC7786287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice, but their development and implementation is resource intensive. We aimed to describe modern RCTs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and identify predictors of successful accrual and publication.Materials and methodsClinicalTrials.gov was queried for phase III GI cancer RCTs opened between 2010 and 2019 and divided into two cohorts: past and recruiting. Past trials were analyzed for predictors of successful accrual and the subset with ≥3 years follow-up were analyzed for predictors of publication. Univariate and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to identify covariates associated with complete accrual and publication status.ResultsA total of 533 GI RCTs were opened from 2010 to 2019, 244 of which are still recruiting. In the "past" trials cohort (235/533) MVA, Asian continent of enrollment was a predictor for successful accrual, whereas trials with prolonged enrollment (duration longer than median of 960 days) trended to failed accrual. Predictors for publication on MVA included international enrollment and accrual completion. Sponsorship was not associated with accrual or publication. Notably, 33% of past trials remain unpublished, and 60% of trials that were closed early remain unpublished.ConclusionAccrual rate and the primary continent of enrollment drive both trial completion and publication in GI oncology. Accrual must be streamlined to enhance the impact of RCTs on clinical management. A large portion of trials remain unpublished, underscoring the need to encourage dissemination of all trials to, at a minimum, inform future trial design.Implications for practiceTwo-thirds of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology phase III randomized controlled trials successfully accrue; however, one third of these trials are unpublished and more than half of trials that close early are unpublished. The strongest predictors for publication are successful accrual and international collaborations. Initiatives to optimize the trial enrollment process need to be explored to maximize the potential for trials to engender progress in clinical practice. Moreover, this study identified a significant publication bias in the realm of GI oncology, and the field should promote reporting of all trials in order to better inform future trial questions and design.
| S-EPMC8342580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical features from electronic health records (EHRs) can be used to build a complementary tool to predict coronary artery disease (CAD) susceptibility.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine whether an EHR score can improve CAD prediction and reclassification 1 year before diagnosis, beyond conventional clinical guidelines as determined by the pooled cohort equations (PCE) and a polygenic risk score for CAD.MethodsWe applied a machine learning framework using clinical features from the EHR in a multiethnic, clinical care cohort (BioMe) comprising 555 CAD cases and 6,349 control subjects and in a population-based cohort (UK Biobank) comprising 3,130 CAD cases and 378,344 control subjects for external validation.ResultsCompared with the PCE, the EHR score improved CAD prediction by 12% in the BioMe Biobank and by 9% in the UK Biobank. The EHR score reclassified 25.8% and 15.2% individuals in each cohort respectively, compared with the PCE score. We observed larger improvements in the EHR score over the PCE in a subgroup of individuals with low CAD risk, with 20% increased discrimination and 34.4% increased reclassification. In all models, the polygenic risk score for CAD did not improve CAD prediction, compared with the PCE or EHR score.ConclusionsThe EHR score resulted in increased prediction and reclassification for CAD, demonstrating its potential use for population health monitoring of short-term CAD risk in large health systems.
| S-EPMC8956801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify impacts of different survey methodologies assessing primary care physicians' (PCPs') experiences with electronic health records (EHRs), we compared three surveys: the 2022 Continuous Certification Questionnaire (CCQ) from the American Board of Family Medicine, the 2022 University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Physician Health IT Survey, and the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey (NEHRS).Materials and methodsWe evaluated differences between survey pairs using Rao-Scott corrected chi-square tests, which account for weighting.ResultsCCQ received 3991 responses from PCPs (100% response rate), UCSF received 1375 (3.6% response rate), and NEHRS received 858 (18.2% response rate). Substantial, statistically significant differences in demographics were detected across the surveys. CCQ respondents were younger and more likely to work in a health system; NEHRS respondents were more likely to work in private practice; and UCSF respondents disproportionately practiced in larger academic settings. Many EHR experience indicators were similar between CCQ and NEHRS, but CCQ respondents reported higher documentation burden.DiscussionThe UCSF approach is unlikely to supply reliable data. Significant demographic differences between CCQ and NEHRS raise response bias concerns, and while there were similarities in some reported EHR experiences, there were important, significant differences.ConclusionFederal EHR policy monitoring and maintenance require reliable data. This test of existing and alternative sources suggest that diversified data sources are necessary to understand physicians' experiences with EHRs and interoperability. Comprehensive surveys administered by specialty boards have the potential to contribute to these efforts, since they are likely to be free of response bias.
| S-EPMC11258403 | biostudies-literature