Elsevier

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volume 79, November 2016, Pages 104-111
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Original Article
The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.005Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Abstract

Objectives

To assess reporting quality of studies using routinely collected health data (RCD) to inform the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guideline development.

Study Design and Setting

PubMed search for observational studies using RCD on any epidemiologic or clinical topic. Sample of studies published in 2012. Evaluation of five items based on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and eight newly developed items for RCD studies.

Results

Of 124 included studies, 39 (31.5%) clearly described its design in title or abstract. Complete information to frame a focused research question, that is, on the population, intervention/exposure, and outcome, was provided for 51 studies (41.1%). In 44 studies where definitions of codes or classification algorithms would be necessary to operationalize such a research question, only nine (20.5%) reported all items adequately. In 81 studies describing multivariable analyses, 54 (66.7%) reported all variables used for modeling and 34 (42.0%) reported basic details required for replication. Database linkage was reported adequately in 12 of 41 studies (29.3%). Statements about data sharing/availability were rare (5/124; 4%).

Conclusion

Most RCD studies are insufficiently reported. Specific reporting guidelines and more awareness and education on their use are urgently needed.

Keywords

Routinely collected data
Observational studies
Research reporting
Guidelines
Research design
Bibliometrics

Cited by (0)

Funding: This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number 130512). L.G.H. and M.B. were supported by Santésuisse and the Gottfried and Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation. E.I.B. is supported by a Career Development Award from the Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program and a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, and Crohn's and Colitis Canada. S.M.L. is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist award from the UK Department of Health. E.H. is supported by a Wellcome Trust grant (grant number 098504/Z/12/Z).

Conflict of interest: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf. L.G.H., S.M.L., E.v.E., J.M.J., and E.I.B. are members of the RECORD initiative. E.v.E. is coconvenor of the STROBE initiative. All other authors declare no financial relationships with any organization that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the UK Department of Health.