Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29474617›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2016

Using big data from health records from four countries to evaluate chronic disease outcomes: a study in 114 364 survivors of myocardial infarction.

Eleni Rapsomaniki, Marcus Thuresson, Erru Yang, Patrick Blin, Phillip Hunt, Sheng-Chia Chung, Dimitris Stogiannis, Mar Pujades-Rodriguez, Adam Timmis, Spiros C Denaxas and 12 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Using Bayesian Evidence Synthesis Methods to Incorporate Real-World Evidence in Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  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

22 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Eleni RapsomanikiFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, UK.
Marcus ThuressonStatisticon AB, Uppsala, Sweden.
Erru YangRetrospective Observational Studies, Evidera, Lexington, MA, USA.
Patrick BlinDepartment of Pharmacology, CIC Bordeaux CIC1401 INSERM, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Phillip HuntRetrospective Observational Studies, Evidera, Lexington, MA, USA.
Sheng-Chia ChungFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, UK.
Dimitris StogiannisDepartment of Mathematics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Mar Pujades-RodriguezFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, UK.
Adam TimmisFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, UK.
Spiros C DenaxasFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, UK.
Nicolas DanchinHôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
Michael StokesRetrospective Observational Studies, Evidera, Lexington, MA, USA.
Florence Thomas-DelecourtEpidemiology, AstraZeneca Rueil-Malmaison, Rueil-Malmaison, France.
Cathy EmmasReal World Evidence, AstraZeneca Luton, Luton, UK.
Pål HasvoldMedical Department, AstraZeneca Nordic-Baltic, Oslo, Norway.
Em JenningsGlobal Payer Evidence and Pricing, AstraZeneca R&D, Cambridge, UK.
Saga JohanssonGlobal Medicines Development, AstraZeneca Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden.
David J CohenSaint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, USA.
Tomas JernbergDepartment of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Nicholas MooreDepartment of Pharmacology, CIC Bordeaux CIC1401 INSERM, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Magnus JanzonDepartment of Cardiology and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Harry HemingwayFarr Institute of Health Informatics Research, University College London, London, UK.
Farr Institute · GBAstraZeneca (United Kingdom) · GBUniversité de Bordeaux · FRAstraZeneca (France) · FRAstraZeneca (Sweden) · SEHôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou · FRKarolinska University Hospital · SELinköping University · SENational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRNordic Semiconductor (Norway) · NOSaint Luke's Hospital · USStatisticon (Sweden) · SE

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13041Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Medical Research Council MR/M015084/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo assess the international validity of using hospital record data to compare long-term outcomes in heart attack survivors. METHODS AND

resultsWe used samples of national, ongoing, unselected record sources to assess three outcomes: cause death; a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death; and hospitalized bleeding. Patients aged 65 years and older entered the study 1 year following the most recent discharge for acute MI in 2002-11 [n = 54 841 (Sweden), 53 909 (USA), 4653 (England), and 961 (France)]. Across each of the four countries, we found consistent associations with 12 baseline prognostic factors and each of the three outcomes. In each country, we observed high 3-year crude cumulative risks of all-cause death (from 19.6% [England] to 30.2% [USA]); the composite of MI, stroke, or death [from 26.0% (France) to 36.2% (USA)]; and hospitalized bleeding [from 3.1% (France) to 5.3% (USA)]. After adjustments for baseline risk factors, risks were similar across all countries [relative risks (RRs) compared with Sweden not statistically significant], but higher in the USA for all-cause death [RR USA vs. Sweden, 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.04-1.26)] and hospitalized bleeding [RR USA vs. Sweden, 1.54 (1.21-1.96)].

conclusionThe validity of using hospital record data is supported by the consistency of estimates across four countries of a high adjusted risk of death, further MI, and stroke in the chronic phase after MI. The possibility that adjusted risks of mortality and bleeding are higher in the USA warrants further study.

Identifiers

PMID29474617
PMCPMC5815620
OpenAlexW2279294247

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.