ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2024
Inconsistency in UK Biobank Event Definitions From Different Data Sources and Its Impact on Bias and Generalizability: A Case Study of Venous Thromboembolism.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- An integrative framework for drug target discovery bridging clinical trial and genetic data insights.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Genetic Downregulation of Interleukin-6 Signaling, Coagulation Function, and Risk of Thromboembolic Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- A Principled Framework for Mendelian Randomization in Oral Health Research.Journal of periodontal research · 2025Article
- Next generation biobanking ontology: introducing-omics contextual data to biobanking ontology.Bioinformatics advances · 2025Article
- The importance of diverse multiomics datasets and analyses.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The UK Biobank study contains several sources of diagnostic data, including hospital inpatient data and data on self-reported conditions for approximately 500,000 participants and primary-care data for approximately 177,000 participants (35%). Epidemiologic investigations require a primary disease definition, but whether to combine data sources to maximize statistical power or focus on only 1 source to ensure a consistent outcome is not clear. The consistency of disease definitions was investigated for venous thromboembolism (VTE) by evaluating overlap when defining cases from 3 sources: hospital inpatient data, primary-care reports, and self-reported questionnaires. VTE cases showed little overlap between data sources, with only 6% of reported events for persons with primary-care data being identified by all 3 sources (hospital, primary-care, and self-reports), while 71% appeared in only 1 source. Deep vein thrombosis-only events represented 68% of self-reported VTE cases and 36% of hospital-reported VTE cases, while pulmonary embolism-only events represented 20% of self-reported VTE cases and 50% of hospital-reported VTE cases. Additionally, different distributions of sociodemographic characteristics were observed; for example, patients in 46% of hospital-reported VTE cases were female, compared with 58% of self-reported VTE cases. These results illustrate how seemingly neutral decisions taken to improve data quality can affect the representativeness of a data set.
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.