Variation in methods, results and reporting in electronic health record-based studies evaluating routine care in gout: A systematic review.

Clicks: 388
ID: 63397
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #286 of 2,056 articles by views in PloS one

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 2,056 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
To perform a systematic review examining the variation in methods, results, reporting and risk of bias in electronic health record (EHR)-based studies evaluating management of a common musculoskeletal disease, gout.Two reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for all EHR-based studies published by February 2019 investigating gout pharmacological treatment. Information was extracted on study design, eligibility criteria, definitions, medication usage, effectiveness and safety data, comprehensiveness of reporting (RECORD), and Cochrane risk of bias (registered PROSPERO CRD42017065195).We screened 5,603 titles/abstracts, 613 full-texts and selected 75 studies including 1.9M gout patients. Gout diagnosis was defined in 26 ways across the studies, most commonly using a single diagnostic code (n = 31, 41.3%). 48.4% did not specify a disease-free period before 'incident' diagnosis. Medication use was suboptimal and varied with disease definition while results regarding effectiveness and safety were broadly similar across studies despite variability in inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness of reporting was variable, ranging from 73% (55/75) appropriately discussing the limitations of EHR data use, to 5% (4/75) reporting on key data cleaning steps. Risk of bias was generally low.The wide variation in case definitions and medication-related analysis among EHR-based studies has implications for reported medication use. This is amplified by variable reporting comprehensiveness and the limited consideration of EHR-relevant biases (e.g. data adequacy) in study assessment tools. We recommend accounting for these biases and performing a sensitivity analysis on case definitions, and suggest changes to assessment tools to foster this.
Reference Key
crossfield2019variationplos Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Crossfield, Samantha S R;Lai, Lana Yin Hui;Kingsbury, Sarah R;Baxter, Paul;Johnson, Owen;Conaghan, Philip G;Pujades-Rodriguez, Mar;
Journal PloS one
Year 2019
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0224272
URL
Keywords
water wastewater antibiotics salmonella cafo

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.