Checklist and guidance on creating codelists for routinely collected health data research.

NIHR open research Pub Date : 2024-09-18 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3310/nihropenres.13550.2
Julian Matthewman, Kirsty Andresen, Anne Suffel, Liang-Yu Lin, Anna Schultze, John Tazare, Krishnan Bhaskaran, Elizabeth Williamson, Ruth Costello, Jennifer Quint, Helen Strongman
{"title":"Checklist and guidance on creating codelists for routinely collected health data research.","authors":"Julian Matthewman, Kirsty Andresen, Anne Suffel, Liang-Yu Lin, Anna Schultze, John Tazare, Krishnan Bhaskaran, Elizabeth Williamson, Ruth Costello, Jennifer Quint, Helen Strongman","doi":"10.3310/nihropenres.13550.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Codelists are required to extract meaningful information on characteristics and events from routinely collected health data such as electronic health records. Research using routinely collected health data relies on codelists to define study populations and variables, thus, trustworthy codelists are important. Here, we provide a checklist, in the style of commonly used reporting guidelines, to help researchers adhere to best practice in codelist development and sharing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on a literature search and a workshop with researchers experienced in the use of routinely collected health data, we created a set of recommendations that are 1. broadly applicable to different datasets, research questions, and methods of codelist creation; 2. easy to follow, implement and document by an individual researcher, and 3. fit within a step-by-step process. We then formatted these recommendations into a checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We have created a 10-step checklist, comprising 28 items, with accompanying guidance on each step. The checklist advises on which metadata to provide, how to define a clinical concept, how to identify and evaluate existing codelists, how to create new codelists, and how to review, check, finalise, and publish a created codelist.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Use of the checklist can reassure researchers that best practice was followed during the development of their codelists, increasing trust in research that relies on these codelists and facilitating wider re-use and adaptation by other researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":74312,"journal":{"name":"NIHR open research","volume":"4 ","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437289/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIHR open research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/nihropenres.13550.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Codelists are required to extract meaningful information on characteristics and events from routinely collected health data such as electronic health records. Research using routinely collected health data relies on codelists to define study populations and variables, thus, trustworthy codelists are important. Here, we provide a checklist, in the style of commonly used reporting guidelines, to help researchers adhere to best practice in codelist development and sharing.

Methods: Based on a literature search and a workshop with researchers experienced in the use of routinely collected health data, we created a set of recommendations that are 1. broadly applicable to different datasets, research questions, and methods of codelist creation; 2. easy to follow, implement and document by an individual researcher, and 3. fit within a step-by-step process. We then formatted these recommendations into a checklist.

Results: We have created a 10-step checklist, comprising 28 items, with accompanying guidance on each step. The checklist advises on which metadata to provide, how to define a clinical concept, how to identify and evaluate existing codelists, how to create new codelists, and how to review, check, finalise, and publish a created codelist.

Conclusions: Use of the checklist can reassure researchers that best practice was followed during the development of their codelists, increasing trust in research that relies on these codelists and facilitating wider re-use and adaptation by other researchers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为常规收集的健康数据研究创建代码表的清单和指南。
背景:要从常规收集的健康数据(如电子健康记录)中提取有意义的特征和事件信息,就需要编码表。使用常规收集的健康数据进行的研究依赖于代码表来定义研究人群和变量,因此,值得信赖的代码表非常重要。在此,我们按照常用报告指南的风格提供了一份核对表,以帮助研究人员在制定和共享代码表时遵循最佳实践:方法:基于文献检索以及与在使用常规收集的健康数据方面经验丰富的研究人员进行的研讨会,我们创建了一套建议:1. 广泛适用于不同的数据集、研究问题和代码表创建方法;2. 易于单个研究人员遵循、实施和记录;3. 适合逐步进行的流程。然后,我们将这些建议格式化为一份核对表:结果:我们创建了一份包含 28 个项目的 10 步核对表,每个步骤都有相应的指导。该核对表建议提供哪些元数据,如何定义临床概念,如何识别和评估现有的代码表,如何创建新的代码表,以及如何审核、检查、最终确定和发布创建的代码表:使用核对表可以让研究人员放心,他们在制定代码表时遵循了最佳实践,从而提高了依赖这些代码表进行的研究的可信度,并促进其他研究人员更广泛地重复使用和调整代码表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
improving Pain mAnagement for childreN and young people attendeD by Ambulance (PANDA): protocol for a realist review. Mapping decision-making pathways: Determination of intervention entry points for diagnostic tests in suspected serious infection. Pharmacist-led DE-eSCALation of opioids post-surgical dischargE (DESCALE) - A multi-centre, non-randomised, feasibility study protocol. Pulmonary aspiration during pregnancy or immediately postpartum in the UK: A population-based case-control study. The UK Breast Cancer in Pregnancy (UKBCiP) Study. Incidence, diagnosis, management and short-term outcomes of breast cancer first diagnosed during pregnancy in the United Kingdom: A population-based descriptive study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1