Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24760353›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2014

Can analyses of electronic patient records be independently and externally validated? The effect of statins on the mortality of patients with ischaemic heart disease: a cohort study with nested case-control analysis.

David Reeves, David A Springate, Darren M Ashcroft, Ronan Ryan, Tim Doran, Richard Morris, Ivan Olier, Evangelos Kontopantelis

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank Dementia e-cohort (SAIL-DeC).International journal of population data science · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Variation in anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation between English clinical commissioning groups: an observational study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Use of primary care data to predict those most vulnerable to cold weather: a case-crossover analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

David ReevesNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
David A Springate
Darren M Ashcroft
Ronan Ryan
Tim Doran
Richard Morris
Ivan Olier
Evangelos Kontopantelis

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-016Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo conduct a fully independent and external validation of a research study based on one electronic health record database, using a different electronic database sampling the same population.

designUsing the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we replicated a published investigation into the effects of statins in patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) by a different research team using QResearch. We replicated the original methods and analysed all-cause mortality using: (1) a cohort analysis and (2) a case-control analysis nested within the full cohort.

settingElectronic health record databases containing longitudinal patient consultation data from large numbers of general practices distributed throughout the UK.

participantsCPRD data for 34 925 patients with IHD from 224 general practices, compared to previously published results from QResearch for 13 029 patients from 89 general practices. The study period was from January 1996 to December 2003.

resultsWe successfully replicated the methods of the original study very closely. In a cohort analysis, risk of death was lower by 55% for patients on statins, compared with 53% for QResearch (adjusted HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.50; vs 0.47, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.53). In case-control analyses, patients on statins had a 31% lower odds of death, compared with 39% for QResearch (adjusted OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.75; vs OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.72). Results were also close for individual statins.

conclusionsDatabase differences in population characteristics and in data definitions, recording, quality and completeness had a minimal impact on key statistical outputs. The results uphold the validity of research using CPRD and QResearch by providing independent evidence that both datasets produce very similar estimates of treatment effect, leading to the same clinical and policy decisions. Together with other non-independent replication studies, there is a nascent body of evidence for wider validity.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsMortalityAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCase-Control StudiesChildChild, PreschoolDatabases, FactualDiabetes ComplicationsFemaleHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsInfantHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPrimary CareStatistics & Research Methods

Identifiers

PMID24760353
PMCPMC4010839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.