IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha S R Crossfield
  • Lana Yin Hui Lai
  • Sarah R Kingsbury
  • Paul Baxter
  • Owen Johnson
  • Philip G Conaghan
  • Mar Pujades-Rodriguez

Abstract

Objective: 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. Methods: 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). Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha S R Crossfield & Lana Yin Hui Lai & Sarah R Kingsbury & Paul Baxter & Owen Johnson & Philip G Conaghan & Mar Pujades-Rodriguez, 2019. "Variation in methods, results and reporting in electronic health record-based studies evaluating routine care in gout: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224272
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224272
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224272
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224272&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224272?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacqueline Ramke & Anna Palagyi & Vanessa Jordan & Jennifer Petkovic & Clare E Gilbert, 2017. "Using the STROBE statement to assess reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Negin Rahmani & Alireza Salehi & Hossein Molavi Vardanjani & Maryam Marzban & Arezoo Behbood, 2020. "Using STROBE checklist to assess the reporting quality of observational studies affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, and its correlates: a scientometric study from Iran," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 989-1001, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.