Dataset Information

Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Defining a study population and creating an analytic dataset from longitudinal healthcare databases involves many decisions. Our objective was to catalogue scientific decisions underpinning study execution that should be reported to facilitate replication and enable assessment of validity of studies conducted in large healthcare databases.

Methods

We reviewed key investigator decisions required to operate a sample of macros and software tools designed to create and analyze analytic cohorts from longitudinal streams of healthcare data. A panel of academic, regulatory, and industry experts in healthcare database analytics discussed and added to this list.

Conclusion

Evidence generated from large healthcare encounter and reimbursement databases is increasingly being sought by decision-makers. Varied terminology is used around the world for the same concepts. Agreeing on terminology and which parameters from a large catalogue are the most essential to report for replicable research would improve transparency and facilitate assessment of validity. At a minimum, reporting for a database study should provide clarity regarding operational definitions for key temporal anchors and their relation to each other when creating the analytic dataset, accompanied by an attrition table and a design diagram. A substantial improvement in reproducibility, rigor and confidence in real world evidence generated from healthcare databases could be achieved with greater transparency about operational study parameters used to create analytic datasets from longitudinal healthcare databases.

SUBMITTER: Wang SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5639362 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0.

Wang Shirley V SV Schneeweiss Sebastian S Berger Marc L ML Brown Jeffrey J de Vries Frank F Douglas Ian I Gagne Joshua J JJ Gini Rosa R Klungel Olaf O Mullins C Daniel CD Nguyen Michael D MD Rassen Jeremy A JA Smeeth Liam L Sturkenboom Miriam M

Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 20170901 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>Defining a study population and creating an analytic dataset from longitudinal healthcare databases involves many decisions. Our objective was to catalogue scientific decisions underpinning study execution that should be reported to facilitate replication and enable assessment of validity of studies conducted in large healthcare databases.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed key investigator decisions required to operate a sample of macros and software tools designed to create and analyze ...[more]

PMID: 28913963

Similar Datasets

Project description:Observational studies are based on systematic observation, understood as an organized recording and quantification of behavior in its natural context. Applied to the specific area of sports, observational studies present advantages when comparing studies based on other designs, such as the flexibility for adapting to different contexts and the possibility of using non-standardized instruments as well as a high degree of development in specific software and data analysis. Although the importance and usefulness of sports-related observational studies have been widely shown, there is no checklist to report these studies. Consequently, authors do not have a guide to follow in order to include all of the important elements in an observational study in sports areas, and reviewers do not have a reference tool for assessing this type of work. To resolve these issues, this article aims to develop a checklist to measure the quality of sports-related observational studies based on a content validity study. The participants were 22 judges with at least 3 years of experience in observational studies, sports areas, and methodology. They evaluated a list of 60 items systematically selected and classified into 12 dimensions. They were asked to score four aspects of each item on 5-point Likert scales to measure the following dimensions: representativeness, relevance, utility, and feasibility. The judges also had an open-format section for comments. The Osterlind index was calculated for each item and for each of the four aspects. Items were considered appropriate when obtaining a score of at least 0.5 in the four assessed aspects. After considering these inclusion criteria and all of the open-format comments, the resultant checklist consisted of 54 items grouped into the same initial 12 dimensions. Finally, we highlight the strengths of this work. We also present its main limitation: the need to apply the resultant checklist to obtain data and, thus, increase quality indicators of its psychometric properties. For this reason, as relevant actions for further development, we encourage expert readers to use it and provide feedback; we plan to apply it to different sport areas.

Dataset Information

Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0.

Purpose

Methods

Conclusion

Publications

Reporting to Improve Reproducibility and Facilitate Validity Assessment for Healthcare Database Studies V1.0.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets