Cargando…
Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods
BACKGROUND: Routinely recorded data held in electronic health records can be used to inform the conduct of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, limitations with access and accuracy have been identified. Objective: Using epilepsy as an exemplar condition, we assessed the attributes and agree...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8259387/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34225782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05294-6 |
_version_ | 1783718660235329536 |
---|---|
author | Powell, G. A. Bonnett, L. J. Smith, C. T. Hughes, D. A. Williamson, P. R. Marson, A. G. |
author_facet | Powell, G. A. Bonnett, L. J. Smith, C. T. Hughes, D. A. Williamson, P. R. Marson, A. G. |
author_sort | Powell, G. A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Routinely recorded data held in electronic health records can be used to inform the conduct of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, limitations with access and accuracy have been identified. Objective: Using epilepsy as an exemplar condition, we assessed the attributes and agreement of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using case report forms in a UK RCT assessing antiepileptic drug treatments for individuals newly diagnosed with epilepsy. METHODS: The case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK multicentre RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs as treatments for epilepsy. Ninety-eight of 470 eligible participants provided consent for access to routinely recorded secondary care data that were retrieved from NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics (N=71) and primary and secondary care data from The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (N=27). We assessed data items relevant to the identification of individuals eligible for inclusion in SANAD II, baseline and follow-up visits. The attributes of routinely recorded data were assessed including the degree of missing data. The agreement between routinely recorded data and data collected on case report forms in SANAD II was assessed using calculation of Cohen’s kappa for categorical data and construction of Bland-Altman plots for continuous data. RESULTS: There was a significant degree of missing data in the routine record for 15 of the 20 variables assessed, including all clinical variables. Agreement was poor for the majority of comparisons, including the assessments of seizure occurrence and adverse events. For example, only 23/62 (37%) participants had a date of first-ever seizure identified in routine datasets. Agreement was satisfactory for the date of prescription of antiepileptic drugs and episodes of healthcare resource use. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently significant limitations preventing the use of routinely recorded data for participant identification and assessment of clinical outcomes in epilepsy, and potentially other chronic conditions. Further research is urgently required to assess the attributes, agreement, additional benefits, cost-effectiveness and ‘optimal mix’ of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using standard methods such as case report forms at clinic visits for people with epilepsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II (EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64, registered 05/09/2012; ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN30294119, registered 03/07/2012)) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05294-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8259387 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82593872021-07-07 Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods Powell, G. A. Bonnett, L. J. Smith, C. T. Hughes, D. A. Williamson, P. R. Marson, A. G. Trials Research BACKGROUND: Routinely recorded data held in electronic health records can be used to inform the conduct of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, limitations with access and accuracy have been identified. Objective: Using epilepsy as an exemplar condition, we assessed the attributes and agreement of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using case report forms in a UK RCT assessing antiepileptic drug treatments for individuals newly diagnosed with epilepsy. METHODS: The case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK multicentre RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs as treatments for epilepsy. Ninety-eight of 470 eligible participants provided consent for access to routinely recorded secondary care data that were retrieved from NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics (N=71) and primary and secondary care data from The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (N=27). We assessed data items relevant to the identification of individuals eligible for inclusion in SANAD II, baseline and follow-up visits. The attributes of routinely recorded data were assessed including the degree of missing data. The agreement between routinely recorded data and data collected on case report forms in SANAD II was assessed using calculation of Cohen’s kappa for categorical data and construction of Bland-Altman plots for continuous data. RESULTS: There was a significant degree of missing data in the routine record for 15 of the 20 variables assessed, including all clinical variables. Agreement was poor for the majority of comparisons, including the assessments of seizure occurrence and adverse events. For example, only 23/62 (37%) participants had a date of first-ever seizure identified in routine datasets. Agreement was satisfactory for the date of prescription of antiepileptic drugs and episodes of healthcare resource use. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently significant limitations preventing the use of routinely recorded data for participant identification and assessment of clinical outcomes in epilepsy, and potentially other chronic conditions. Further research is urgently required to assess the attributes, agreement, additional benefits, cost-effectiveness and ‘optimal mix’ of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using standard methods such as case report forms at clinic visits for people with epilepsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II (EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64, registered 05/09/2012; ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN30294119, registered 03/07/2012)) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05294-6. BioMed Central 2021-07-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8259387/ /pubmed/34225782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05294-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Powell, G. A. Bonnett, L. J. Smith, C. T. Hughes, D. A. Williamson, P. R. Marson, A. G. Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods |
title | Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods |
title_full | Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods |
title_fullStr | Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods |
title_short | Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods |
title_sort | using routinely recorded data in a uk rct: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8259387/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34225782 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05294-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT powellga usingroutinelyrecordeddatainaukrctacomparisontostandardprospectivedatacollectionmethods AT bonnettlj usingroutinelyrecordeddatainaukrctacomparisontostandardprospectivedatacollectionmethods AT smithct usingroutinelyrecordeddatainaukrctacomparisontostandardprospectivedatacollectionmethods AT hughesda usingroutinelyrecordeddatainaukrctacomparisontostandardprospectivedatacollectionmethods AT williamsonpr usingroutinelyrecordeddatainaukrctacomparisontostandardprospectivedatacollectionmethods AT marsonag usingroutinelyrecordeddatainaukrctacomparisontostandardprospectivedatacollectionmethods |