The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient

Lars G. Hemkens · Eric Ian Benchimol · Sinéad Langan · Matthias Briel · Benjamin Kasenda · Jean‐Marie Januel +2 more

73 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Medical Coding and Health Information Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess reporting quality of studies using routinely collected health data (RCD) to inform the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PubMed search for observational studies using RCD on any epidemiologic or clinical topic. Sample of studies published in 2012. Evaluation of five items based on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and eight newly developed items for RCD studies. RESULTS: Of 124 included studies, 39 (31.5%) clearly described its design in title or abstract. Complete information to frame a focused research question, that is, on the population, intervention/exposure, and outcome, was provided for 51 studies (41.1%). In 44 studies where definitions of codes or classification algorithms would be necessary to operationalize such a research question, only nine (20.5%) reported all items adequately. In 81 studies describing multivariable analyses, 54 (66.7%) reported all variables used for modeling and 34 (42.0%) reported basic details required for replication. Database linkage was reported adequately in 12 of 41 studies (29.3%). Statements about data sharing/availability were rare (5/124; 4%). CONCLUSION: Most RCD studies are insufficiently reported. Specific reporting guidelines and more awareness and education on their use are urgently needed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 73 citations exist upstream.

References

2007The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies 2015The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement 2014Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research 2015Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals 2009An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies 1997Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews 2015The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines 2008Poor Quality of Reporting Confounding Bias in Observational Intervention Studies: A Systematic Review

Cited by

2016The RECORD reporting guidelines: meeting the methodological and ethical demands of transparency in research using routinely-collected health data 2019Consideration of confounding was suboptimal in the reporting of observational studies in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological study 2021Methods and results used in the development of a consensus-driven extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (CONSORT-ROUTINE)

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.