Dataset Information

Reporting of abstracts in studies that used routinely collected data for exploring drug treatment effects: a cross-sectional survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In recent years, studies that used routinely collected data (RCD), such as electronic medical records and administrative claims, for exploring drug treatment effects, including effectiveness and safety, have been increasingly published. Abstracts of such studies represent a highly attended source for busy clinicians or policy-makers, and are important for indexing by literature database. If less clearly presented, they may mislead decisions or indexing. We thus conducted a cross-sectional survey to systematically examine how the abstracts of such studies were reported.

Methods

We searched PubMed to identify all observational studies published in 2018 that used RCD for assessing drug treatment effects. Teams of methods-trained collected data from eligible studies using pilot-tested, standardized forms that were developed and expanded from "The reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data statement for pharmacoepidemiology" (RECORD-PE) statement. We used descriptive analyses to examine how authors reported data source, study design, data analysis, and interpretation of findings.

Results

A total of 222 studies were included, of which 118 (53.2%) reported type of database used, 17 (7.7%) clearly reported database linkage, and 140 (63.1%) reported coverage of data source. Only 44 (19.8%) studies stated a predefined hypothesis, 127 (57.2%) reported study design, 140 (63.1%) reported statistical models used, 142 (77.6%) reported adjusted estimates, 33 (14.9%) mentioned sensitivity analyses, and 39 (17.6%) made a strong claim about treatment effect. Studies published in top 5 general medicine journals were more likely to report the name of data source (94.7% vs. 67.0%) and study design (100% vs. 53.2%) than those in other journals.

Conclusions

The under-reporting of key methodological features in abstracts of RCD studies was common, which would substantially compromise the indexing of this type of literature and prevent the effective use of study findings. Substantial efforts to improve the reporting of abstracts in these studies are highly warranted.

SUBMITTER: Liu M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8742367 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveRoutinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.MethodsTwo modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period.ResultsThe qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist.ConclusionsThe RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about Canadians' knowledge of and level of support for using administrative and other large, routinely collected data for health research, despite the benefits of this type of research to patients, health care systems and society. We sought to benchmark the views of Canadian adults on this topic.MethodsResearchers and patient leaders of 3 joint and skin disease organizations codeveloped a cross-sectional online survey that was conducted between January and August 2017. The patient partners were engaged as full partners. Recruitment was mainly through the organizations' websites, email and social media. The survey captured respondents' initial perceptions, then (after background information on the topic was provided) elicited their views on the benefits of health research using routinely collected data, data access/privacy concerns, ongoing perceptions and educational needs.ResultsOf the 230 people who consented, 183 (79.6%) started the survey, and 151 (65.6%) completed the survey. Of the 151, 117 (77.5%) were women, 84 (55.6%) were British Columbians, 87 (57.6%) were university graduates, and 101 (66.9%) had a chronic disease. At the beginning of the survey, 119 respondents (78.8%) felt positively about the use of routinely collected data for health research. Respondents identified the ability to study long-term treatment effects and rare events (114 [75.5%]) and large numbers of people (110 [72.8%]) as key benefits. Deidentification of personal information was the top privacy measure (135 [89.4%]), and 101 respondents (66.9%) wanted to learn more about data stewards' granting access to data. On survey completion, more respondents (141 [93.4%]) felt positively about the use of routinely collected data, but only 87 (57.6%) were confident about data security and privacy.InterpretationRespondents generally supported the use of deidentified routinely collected data for health research. Although further investigation is needed with more representative samples, our findings suggest that additional education, especially about access and privacy controls, may enhance public support for research endeavours using these data.

Project description:BackgroundAdvancing the use of genomic data with routinely collected health data holds great promise for health care and research. Increasing the use of these data is a high priority to understand and address the causes of disease.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide an outline of the use of genomic data alongside routinely collected data in health research to date. As this field prepares to move forward, it is important to take stock of the current state of play in order to highlight new avenues for development, identify challenges, and ensure that adequate data governance models are in place for safe and socially acceptable progress.MethodsWe conducted a literature review to draw information from past studies that have used genomic and routinely collected data and conducted interviews with individuals who use these data for health research. We collected data on the following: the rationale of using genomic data in conjunction with routinely collected data, types of genomic and routinely collected data used, data sources, project approvals, governance and access models, and challenges encountered.ResultsThe main purpose of using genomic and routinely collected data was to conduct genome-wide and phenome-wide association studies. Routine data sources included electronic health records, disease and death registries, health insurance systems, and deprivation indices. The types of genomic data included polygenic risk scores, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and measures of genetic activity, and biobanks generally provided these data. Although the literature search showed that biobanks released data to researchers, the case studies revealed a growing tendency for use within a data safe haven. Challenges of working with these data revolved around data collection, data storage, technical, and data privacy issues.ConclusionsUsing genomic and routinely collected data holds great promise for progressing health research. Several challenges are involved, particularly in terms of privacy. Overcoming these barriers will ensure that the use of these data to progress health research can be exploited to its full potential.