Cargando…

A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data

BACKGROUND: We aimed to test whether a common set of key data items reported across high-impact neonatal clinical trials could be identified, and to quantify their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom neonatal data held in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD). METHODS: We syst...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jawad, Sena, Modi, Neena, Prevost, A. Toby, Gale, Chris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6915866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31842960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3849-7
_version_ 1783480109911506944
author Jawad, Sena
Modi, Neena
Prevost, A. Toby
Gale, Chris
author_facet Jawad, Sena
Modi, Neena
Prevost, A. Toby
Gale, Chris
author_sort Jawad, Sena
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We aimed to test whether a common set of key data items reported across high-impact neonatal clinical trials could be identified, and to quantify their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom neonatal data held in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD). METHODS: We systematically reviewed neonatal clinical trials published in four high-impact medical journals over 10 years (2006–2015) and extracted baseline characteristics, stratification items and potential confounders used to adjust primary outcomes. Completeness was examined using data held in the NNRD for identified data items, for infants admitted to neonatal units in 2015. The NNRD is a repository of routinely recorded data extracted from neonatal Electronic Patient Records (EPR) of all admissions to National Health Service (NHS) Neonatal Units in England, Wales and Scotland. We defined missing data as an empty field or an implausible value. We reported common data items as frequencies and percentages alongside percentages of completeness. RESULTS: We identified 44 studies involving 32,095 infants and 126 data items. Fourteen data items were reported by more than 20% of studies. Gestational age (95%), sex (93%) and birth weight (91%) were the most common baseline data items. The completeness of data in the NNRD was high for these data with greater than 90% completeness found for 9 of the 14 most common items. CONCLUSION: High-impact neonatal clinical trials share common data items. In the United Kingdom, these items can be obtained at a high level of completeness from routinely recorded data held in the NNRD. The feasibility and efficiency using routinely recorded EPR data, such as that held in the NNRD, for clinical trials, rather than collecting these items anew, should be examined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42016046138. Registered prospectively on 17 August 2016.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6915866
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69158662019-12-30 A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data Jawad, Sena Modi, Neena Prevost, A. Toby Gale, Chris Trials Review BACKGROUND: We aimed to test whether a common set of key data items reported across high-impact neonatal clinical trials could be identified, and to quantify their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom neonatal data held in the National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD). METHODS: We systematically reviewed neonatal clinical trials published in four high-impact medical journals over 10 years (2006–2015) and extracted baseline characteristics, stratification items and potential confounders used to adjust primary outcomes. Completeness was examined using data held in the NNRD for identified data items, for infants admitted to neonatal units in 2015. The NNRD is a repository of routinely recorded data extracted from neonatal Electronic Patient Records (EPR) of all admissions to National Health Service (NHS) Neonatal Units in England, Wales and Scotland. We defined missing data as an empty field or an implausible value. We reported common data items as frequencies and percentages alongside percentages of completeness. RESULTS: We identified 44 studies involving 32,095 infants and 126 data items. Fourteen data items were reported by more than 20% of studies. Gestational age (95%), sex (93%) and birth weight (91%) were the most common baseline data items. The completeness of data in the NNRD was high for these data with greater than 90% completeness found for 9 of the 14 most common items. CONCLUSION: High-impact neonatal clinical trials share common data items. In the United Kingdom, these items can be obtained at a high level of completeness from routinely recorded data held in the NNRD. The feasibility and efficiency using routinely recorded EPR data, such as that held in the NNRD, for clinical trials, rather than collecting these items anew, should be examined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42016046138. Registered prospectively on 17 August 2016. BioMed Central 2019-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6915866/ /pubmed/31842960 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3849-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Jawad, Sena
Modi, Neena
Prevost, A. Toby
Gale, Chris
A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data
title A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data
title_full A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data
title_fullStr A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data
title_short A systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded United Kingdom national neonatal data
title_sort systematic review identifying common data items in neonatal trials and assessing their completeness in routinely recorded united kingdom national neonatal data
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6915866/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31842960
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3849-7
work_keys_str_mv AT jawadsena asystematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata
AT modineena asystematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata
AT prevostatoby asystematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata
AT galechris asystematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata
AT jawadsena systematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata
AT modineena systematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata
AT prevostatoby systematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata
AT galechris systematicreviewidentifyingcommondataitemsinneonataltrialsandassessingtheircompletenessinroutinelyrecordedunitedkingdomnationalneonataldata