CPRD Aurum 数据库的使用:从新数据质量评估中获得的启示

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2023-12-16 DOI:10.2147/clep.s434832
Susan Jick, Catherine Vasilakis-Scaramozza, Rebecca Persson, David Neasham, George Kafatos, Katrina Wilcox Hagberg
{"title":"CPRD Aurum 数据库的使用:从新数据质量评估中获得的启示","authors":"Susan Jick, Catherine Vasilakis-Scaramozza, Rebecca Persson, David Neasham, George Kafatos, Katrina Wilcox Hagberg","doi":"10.2147/clep.s434832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong>Abstract:</strong> Ongoing evaluation of any electronic health data source is critical to assess suitability for its use in medical research. In addition, familiarity with a data source’s history and recording practices is important for making informed data source selection, study design choices, and interpretation of results. In this commentary, the authors discuss three studies that assessed different aspects of the quality and completeness of information contained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the well-established CPRD GOLD and to other linked data sources, with the aim to describe insights gained through these data quality assessments. Our findings support the view that CPRD Aurum and GOLD are both valuable tools for studies based on information recorded in primary care but should not be used without critical consideration of strengths and limitations. Further, use of linked data should be considered for some studies, after taking into account all relevant factors.<br/><br/><strong>Keywords:</strong> clinical practice research datalink, CPRD Aurum, CPRD GOLD, validation, data quality","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of the CPRD Aurum Database: Insights Gained from New Data Quality Assessments\",\"authors\":\"Susan Jick, Catherine Vasilakis-Scaramozza, Rebecca Persson, David Neasham, George Kafatos, Katrina Wilcox Hagberg\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/clep.s434832\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong>Abstract:</strong> Ongoing evaluation of any electronic health data source is critical to assess suitability for its use in medical research. In addition, familiarity with a data source’s history and recording practices is important for making informed data source selection, study design choices, and interpretation of results. In this commentary, the authors discuss three studies that assessed different aspects of the quality and completeness of information contained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the well-established CPRD GOLD and to other linked data sources, with the aim to describe insights gained through these data quality assessments. Our findings support the view that CPRD Aurum and GOLD are both valuable tools for studies based on information recorded in primary care but should not be used without critical consideration of strengths and limitations. Further, use of linked data should be considered for some studies, after taking into account all relevant factors.<br/><br/><strong>Keywords:</strong> clinical practice research datalink, CPRD Aurum, CPRD GOLD, validation, data quality\",\"PeriodicalId\":10362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.s434832\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.s434832","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:对任何电子健康数据源进行持续评估对于评估其是否适合用于医学研究至关重要。此外,熟悉数据源的历史和记录方法对于做出明智的数据源选择、研究设计选择和结果解释也很重要。在这篇评论中,作者讨论了三项研究,这三项研究评估了临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)Aurum 与成熟的 CPRD GOLD 及其他链接数据源相比所包含信息的质量和完整性的不同方面,旨在描述通过这些数据质量评估所获得的见解。我们的研究结果支持这样一种观点,即 CPRD Aurum 和 GOLD 都是基于初级医疗记录信息进行研究的重要工具,但在使用时应认真考虑其优势和局限性。此外,在考虑所有相关因素后,某些研究应考虑使用链接数据。 关键词:临床实践研究数据链;CPRD Aurum;CPRD GOLD;验证;数据质量
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Use of the CPRD Aurum Database: Insights Gained from New Data Quality Assessments
Abstract: Ongoing evaluation of any electronic health data source is critical to assess suitability for its use in medical research. In addition, familiarity with a data source’s history and recording practices is important for making informed data source selection, study design choices, and interpretation of results. In this commentary, the authors discuss three studies that assessed different aspects of the quality and completeness of information contained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the well-established CPRD GOLD and to other linked data sources, with the aim to describe insights gained through these data quality assessments. Our findings support the view that CPRD Aurum and GOLD are both valuable tools for studies based on information recorded in primary care but should not be used without critical consideration of strengths and limitations. Further, use of linked data should be considered for some studies, after taking into account all relevant factors.

Keywords: clinical practice research datalink, CPRD Aurum, CPRD GOLD, validation, data quality
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
169
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews. Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews. When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes. The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.
期刊最新文献
Drug-Induced Gynecomastia: Data Mining and Analysis of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System Database Impact of Smoking Reduction Scenarios on the Burden of Myocardial Infarction in the French Population Until 2035 Using Routinely Collected Electronic Healthcare Record Data to Investigate Fibrotic Multimorbidity in England [Letter]. Burden of Gastrointestinal Tumors in Asian Countries, 1990–2021: An Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 Causes of Excess Mortality in Diabetes Patients Without Coronary Artery Disease: A Cohort Study Revealing Endocrinologic Contributions.
×
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