IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125620.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines

Author

Listed:
  • Stuart G Nicholls
  • Pauline Quach
  • Erik von Elm
  • Astrid Guttmann
  • David Moher
  • Irene Petersen
  • Henrik T Sørensen
  • Liam Smeeth
  • Sinéad M Langan
  • Eric I Benchimol

Abstract

Objective: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Methods: Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period. Results: The qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. Conclusions: The RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Stuart G Nicholls & Pauline Quach & Erik von Elm & Astrid Guttmann & David Moher & Irene Petersen & Henrik T Sørensen & Liam Smeeth & Sinéad M Langan & Eric I Benchimol, 2015. "The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125620
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125620
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125620&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125620?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. Francis S. Collins & Lawrence A. Tabak, 2014. "Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility," Nature, Nature, vol. 505(7485), pages 612-613, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bodil Hoffmeyer & Siv Fonnes & Kristoffer Andresen & Jacob Rosenberg, 2023. "Use of inactive Cochrane reviews in academia: A citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2923-2934, May.
    2. Josephine Storch & Carolin Fleischmann-Struzek & Norman Rose & Thomas Lehmann & Anna Mikolajetz & Srikanth Maddela & Mathias W. Pletz & Christina Forstner & Ole Wichmann & Julia Neufeind & Monique Vog, 2022. "The effect of influenza and pneumococcal vaccination in the elderly on health service utilisation and costs: a claims data-based cohort study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(1), pages 67-80, February.
    3. Chiara Barchielli & Milena Vainieri & Chiara Seghieri & Eleonora Salutini & Paolo Zoppi, 2023. "The Function of Bed Management in Pandemic Times—A Case Study of Reaction Time and Bed Reconversion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(12), pages 1-8, June.

    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. Aaron C Ericsson & J Wade Davis & William Spollen & Nathan Bivens & Scott Givan & Catherine E Hagan & Mark McIntosh & Craig L Franklin, 2015. "Effects of Vendor and Genetic Background on the Composition of the Fecal Microbiota of Inbred Mice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Dean A Fergusson & Marc T Avey & Carly C Barron & Mathew Bocock & Kristen E Biefer & Sylvain Boet & Stephane L Bourque & Isidora Conic & Kai Chen & Yuan Yi Dong & Grace M Fox & Ronald B George & Neil , 2019. "Reporting preclinical anesthesia study (REPEAT): Evaluating the quality of reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-15, May.
    3. Tracey L Weissgerber & Vesna D Garovic & Marko Savic & Stacey J Winham & Natasa M Milic, 2016. "From Static to Interactive: Transforming Data Visualization to Improve Transparency," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-8, June.
    4. Bart Penders & J. Britt Holbrook & Sarah de Rijcke, 2019. "Rinse and Repeat: Understanding the Value of Replication across Different Ways of Knowing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Marlo M. Vernon & Frances M. Yang, 2023. "Use of Latent Profile Analysis to Model the Translation of University Research into Health Practice and Policy: Exploration of Proposed Metrics," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(7), pages 1058-1070, November.
    6. Willie A Bidot & Aaron C Ericsson & Craig L Franklin, 2018. "Effects of water decontamination methods and bedding material on the gut microbiota," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, October.
    7. Tracey L Weissgerber & Vesna D Garovic & Jelena S Milin-Lazovic & Stacey J Winham & Zoran Obradovic & Jerome P Trzeciakowski & Natasa M Milic, 2016. "Reinventing Biostatistics Education for Basic Scientists," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-12, April.
    8. Larry V. Hedges & Jacob M. Schauer, 2019. "More Than One Replication Study Is Needed for Unambiguous Tests of Replication," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 44(5), pages 543-570, October.
    9. Nathan A Hotaling & Jun Jeon & Mary Beth Wade & Derek Luong & Xavier-Lewis Palmer & Kapil Bharti & Carl G Simon Jr, 2016. "Training to Improve Precision and Accuracy in the Measurement of Fiber Morphology," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Larry V. Hedges & Jacob M. Schauer, 2021. "The design of replication studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 868-886, July.

    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:pone00:0125620. 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.