ReviewTrials2017
Using routinely recorded data in the UK to assess outcomes in a randomised controlled trial: The Trials of Access.
Review in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Equitable inclusion of patients with cancer on the palliative care register: a systematic review in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Linkage of the CHHiP randomised controlled trial with primary care data: a study investigating ways of supplementing cancer trials and improving evidence-based practice.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Trial
- Using routine primary care data in research: (in)efficient case studies and perspectives from the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- The use of healthcare systems data for RCTs.Trials · 2024Article
- Review
- Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods.Trials · 2021Article
- Review
- A study protocol for the development of a SPIRIT extension for trials conducted using cohorts and routinely collected data (SPIRIT-ROUTINE).HRB open research · 2021Article
- Article
- Does Preexisting Practice Modify How Video Games Recalibrate Physician Heuristics in Trauma Triage?The Journal of surgical research · 2019Article
- Challenges in accessing routinely collected data from multiple providers in the UK for primary studies: Managing the morass.International journal of population data science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the UK, routinely recorded data may benefit prospective studies including randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In an on-going study, we aim to assess the feasibility of access and agreement of routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data compared to data collected during a RCT using standard prospective methods. This paper will summarise available UK routinely recorded data sources and discuss our experience with the feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data for participants of a RCT before finally proposing recommendations for improving the access and implementation of routinely recorded data in RCTs.
methodsSetting: the case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK, multicentre, phase IV RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug treatments for newly diagnosed epilepsy.
participants98 participants have provided written consent to permit the request of routinely recorded data. Study procedures: routinely recorded clinical and non-clinical data were identified and data requested through formal applications from available data holders for the duration that participants have been recruited into SANAD II. The feasibility of accessing routinely recorded data during a RCT is assessed and recommendations for improving access proposed.
resultsSecondary-care clinical and socioeconomic data is recorded on a national basis and can be accessed, although there are limitations in the application process. Primary-care data are recorded by a number of organisations on a de-identified basis but access for specific individuals has not been feasible. Access to data recorded by non-clinical sources, including The Department for Work and Pensions and The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, was not successful.
conclusionsRecommendations discussed include further research to assess the attributes of routinely recorded data, an assessment of public perceptions and the development of strategies to collaboratively improve access to routinely recorded data for research.
trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN30294119 . Registered on 3 July 2012. EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64. Registered on 9 May 2012.
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.