ArticleFamily practice2015
Can different primary care databases produce comparable estimates of burden of disease: results of a study exploring venous leg ulceration.
Article in Family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prescribed Exercise With Compression vs Compression Alone in Treating Patients With Venous Leg Ulcers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA dermatology · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Low dose aspirin as adjuvant treatment for venous leg ulceration: pragmatic, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial (Aspirin4VLU).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Trial
- Risk of COVID-19 among unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a general population study.RMD open · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care databases from the UK have been widely used to produce evidence on the epidemiology and health service usage of a wide range of conditions. To date there have been few evaluations of the comparability of estimates between different sources of these data.
aimTo estimate the comparability of two widely used primary care databases, the Health Improvement Network Database (THIN) and the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) using venous leg ulceration as an exemplar condition. DESIGN OF STUDY: Cross prospective cohort comparison.
settingGPRD and the THIN databases using data from 1998 to 2006.
methodA data set was extracted from both databases containing all cases of persons aged 20 years or greater with a database diagnosis of venous leg ulceration recorded in the databases for the period 1998-2006. Annual rates of incidence and prevalence of venous leg ulceration were calculated within each database and standardized to the European standard population and compared using standardized rate ratios.
resultsComparable estimates of venous leg ulcer incidence from the GPRD and THIN databases could be obtained using data from 2000 to 2006 and of prevalence using data from 2001 to 2006.
conclusionsRecent data collected by these two databases are more likely to produce comparable results of the burden venous leg ulceration. These results require confirmation in other disease areas to enable researchers to have confidence in the comparability of findings from these two widely used primary care research resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.