Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33243167›Full record

SynthesisBMC neurology2020

Routinely collected patient data in neurology research: a systematic mapping review.

Fran Biggin, Hedley C A Emsley, Jo Knight

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC neurology, 2020. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors.

Fran BigginLancaster University Faculty of Health and Medicine, Furness College, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, England.
Hedley C A EmsleyLancaster University Faculty of Health and Medicine, Furness College, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, England. hedley.emsley@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0129-4488
Jo KnightLancaster University Faculty of Health and Medicine, Furness College, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, England.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/R513076/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis review focuses on neurology research which uses routinely collected data. The number of such studies is growing alongside the expansion of data collection. We aim to gain a broad picture of the scope of how routine healthcare data have been utilised.

methodsThis study follows a systematic mapping review approach which does not make a judgement on the quality of the papers included in the review, thereby enabling a complete overview of the field.

resultsOf 4481 publications retrieved, 386 met the eligibility criteria for this study. These publications covered a wide range of conditions, but the majority were based on one or only a small number of neurological conditions. In particular, publications concerned with three discrete areas of neurological practice - multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy/seizure and Parkinson's disease - accounted for 60% of the total. MS was the focus of the highest proportion of eligible studies (35%), yet in the recent Global Burden of Neurological Disease study it ranks only 14th out of 15 neurological disorders for DALY rates. In contrast, migraine is the neurological disorder with the highest ranking of DALYs globally (after stroke) and yet it was represented by only 4% of eligible studies.

conclusionThis review shows that there is a disproportionately large body of literature pertaining to relatively rare disorders, and a correspondingly small body of literature describing more common conditions. Therefore, there is potential for future research to redress this balance.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData CollectionNervous System DiseasesHumansNeurologyElectronic health recordNeurologyRoutinely collected data

Identifiers

PMID33243167
PMCPMC7694309

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.