Trial reportContemporary clinical trials2023
Concordance between clinical outcomes in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial and in the electronic health record.
Trial report in Contemporary clinical trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Linkage of Clinical Trial Data to Routinely Collected Data Sources: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized trials are the gold standard for generating clinical practice evidence, but follow-up and outcome ascertainment are resource-intensive. Electronic health record (EHR) data from routine care can be a cost-effective means of follow-up, but concordance with trial-ascertained outcomes is less well-studied.
methodsWe linked EHR and trial data for participants of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), a randomized trial comparing intensive and standard blood pressure targets. Among participants with available EHR data concurrent to trial-ascertained outcomes, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EHR-recorded cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, using the gold standard of SPRINT-adjudicated outcomes (myocardial infarction (MI)/acute coronary syndrome (ACS), heart failure, stroke, and composite CVD events). We additionally compared the incidence of non-CVD adverse events (hyponatremia, hypernatremia, hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, bradycardia, and hypotension) in trial versus EHR data.
results2468 SPRINT participants were included (mean age 68 (SD 9) years; 26% female). EHR data demonstrated ≥80% sensitivity and specificity, and ≥ 99% negative predictive value for MI/ACS, heart failure, stroke, and composite CVD events. Positive predictive value ranged from 26% (95% CI; 16%, 38%) for heart failure to 52% (95% CI; 37%, 67%) for MI/ACS. EHR data uniformly identified more non-CVD adverse events and higher incidence rates compared with trial ascertainment.
conclusionsThese results support a role for EHR data collection in clinical trials, particularly for capturing laboratory-based adverse events. EHR data may be an efficient source for CVD outcome ascertainment, though there is clear benefit from adjudication to avoid false positives.
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.