Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25880660›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Using an electronic medical record (EMR) to conduct clinical trials: Salford Lung Study feasibility.

Hanaa F Elkhenini, Kourtney J Davis, Norman D Stein, John P New, Mark R Delderfield, Martin Gibson, Jorgen Vestbo, Ashley Woodcock, Nawar Diar Bakerly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Is One Exacerbation Enough to Modify Therapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Primary care perspectives on implementation of clinical trial recruitment.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Hanaa F ElkheniniManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. Hanaa.Elkhenini@srft.nhs.uk.
Kourtney J DavisGlaxoSmithKline R&D, Worldwide Epidemiology, Wavre, Belgium.
Norman D SteinManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
John P NewManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mark R DelderfieldManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Martin GibsonManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Jorgen VestboManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ashley WoodcockManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Nawar Diar BakerlyManchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-world data on the benefit/risk profile of medicines is needed, particularly in patients who are ineligible for randomised controlled trials conducted for registration purposes. This paper describes the methodology and source data verification which enables the conduct of pre-licensing clinical trials of COPD and asthma in the community using the electronic medical record (EMR), NorthWest EHealth linked database (NWEH-LDB) and alert systems.

methodsDual verification of extracts into NWEH-LDB was performed using two independent data sources (Salford Integrated Record [SIR] and Apollo database) from one primary care practice in Salford (N = 3504). A feasibility study was conducted to test the reliability of the NWEH-LDB to support longitudinal data analysis and pragmatic clinical trials in asthma and COPD. This involved a retrospective extraction of data from all registered practices in Salford to identify a cohort of patients with a diagnosis of asthma (aged ≥18) and/or COPD (aged ≥40) and ≥2 prescriptions for inhaled bronchodilators during 2008. Health care resource utilisation (HRU) outcomes during 2009 were assessed. Exacerbations were defined as: prescription for oral corticosteroids (OCS) in asthma and prescription of OCS or antibiotics in COPD; and/or hospitalisation for a respiratory cause.

resultsDual verification demonstrated consistency between SIR and Apollo data sources: 3453 (98.6%) patients were common to both systems; 99.9% of prescription records were matched and of 29,830 diagnosis records, one record was missing from Apollo and 272 (0.9%) from SIR. Identified COPD patients were also highly concordant (Kappa coefficient = 0.98). A total of 7981 asthma patients and 4478 COPD patients were identified within the NWEH-LDB. Cohort analyses enumerated the most commonly prescribed respiratory medication classes to be: inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (42%) and ICS plus long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) (40%) in asthma; ICS plus LABA (55%) and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (36%) in COPD. During 2009 HRU was greater in the COPD versus asthma cohorts, and exacerbation rates in 2009 were higher in patients who had ≥2 exacerbations versus ≤1 exacerbation in 2008 for both asthma (137.5 vs. 20.3 per 100 person-years, respectively) and COPD (144.6 vs. 41.0, respectively).

conclusionApollo and SIR data extracts into NWEH-LDB showed a high level of concordance for asthma and COPD patients. Longitudinal data analysis characterized the COPD and asthma populations in Salford including medications prescribed and health care utilisation outcomes suitable for clinical trial planning.

Indexed as

AsthmaPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualElectronic Health RecordsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHealth ServicesHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25880660
PMCPMC4331140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.