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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Powell, G. A., Bonnett, L. J., Smith, C. T., Hughes, D. A., Williamson, P. R., Marson, A. G.
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