Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31452075›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2019

Transparent Reporting on Research Using Unstructured Electronic Health Record Data to Generate 'Real World' Evidence of Comparative Effectiveness and Safety.

Shirley V Wang, Olga V Patterson, Joshua J Gagne, Jeffrey S Brown, Robert Ball, Pall Jonsson, Adam Wright, Li Zhou, Wim Goettsch, Andrew Bate

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Shirley V WangDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St Suite 303, Boston, MA, 02120, USA. swang1@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7761-7090
Olga V PattersonDivision of Epidemiology, Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Joshua J GagneDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St Suite 303, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.
Jeffrey S BrownDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Robert BallFood and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Pall JonssonNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK.
Adam WrightDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Li ZhouDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Wim GoettschThe National Healthcare Institute (ZIN), Diemen, The Netherlands.
Andrew BatePfizer, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research that makes secondary use of administrative and clinical healthcare databases is increasingly influential for regulatory, reimbursement, and other healthcare decision-making. Consequently, there are numerous guidance documents on reporting for studies that use 'real-world' data captured in administrative claims and electronic health record (EHR) databases. These guidance documents are intended to improve transparency, reproducibility, and the ability to evaluate validity and relevance of design and analysis decisions. However, existing guidance does not differentiate between structured and unstructured information contained in EHRs, registries, or other healthcare data sources. While unstructured text is convenient and readily interpretable in clinical practice, it can be difficult to use for investigation of causal questions, e.g., comparative effectiveness and safety, until data have been cleaned and algorithms applied to extract relevant information to structured fields for analysis. The goal of this paper is to increase transparency for healthcare decision makers and causal inference researchers by providing general recommendations for reporting on steps taken to make unstructured text-based data usable for comparative effectiveness and safety research. These recommendations are designed to be used as an adjunct for existing reporting guidance. They are intended to provide sufficient context and supporting information for causal inference studies involving use of natural language processing- or machine learning-derived data fields, so that researchers, reviewers, and decision makers can be confident in their ability to evaluate the validity and relevance of derived measures for exposures, inclusion/exclusion criteria, covariates, and outcomes for the causal question of interest.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualElectronic Health RecordsInformation Storage and RetrievalNatural Language ProcessingResearch DesignAlgorithmsDecision Support TechniquesHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.