ArticleClinical epidemiology2023
Use of the CPRD Aurum Database: Insights Gained from New Data Quality Assessments.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Validation of an algorithm for selection of SGLT2 and DPP4 inhibitor therapies in people with type 2 diabetes across major UK ethnicity groups: a retrospective cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Pre-Diagnostic Features of Multiple Sclerosis in a Diverse UK Cohort: A Nested Case-Control Study.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy and risk of fracture: nested case-control studies using routinely collected primary care data.The lancet. Healthy longevity · 2025Article
- Burden of allergic rhinitis in the United Kingdom.Frontiers in allergy · 2025Article
- Comparison of Epidemiological Estimates for 19 Cancer Types Using Electronic Health Record Databases in England: An Analysis of CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD Databases with Linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Cancer Registry Data.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Early, medium and long-term mental health in cancer survivors compared with cancer-free comparators: matched cohort study using linked UK electronic health records.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Presence of Breast Cancer Information Recorded in United Kingdom Primary Care Databases: Comparison of CPRD Aurum and CPRD GOLD (Companion Paper 1).Clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ongoing evaluation of any electronic health data source is critical to assess suitability for its use in medical research. In addition, familiarity with a data source's history and recording practices is important for making informed data source selection, study design choices, and interpretation of results. In this commentary, the authors discuss three studies that assessed different aspects of the quality and completeness of information contained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the well-established CPRD GOLD and to other linked data sources, with the aim to describe insights gained through these data quality assessments. Our findings support the view that CPRD Aurum and GOLD are both valuable tools for studies based on information recorded in primary care but should not be used without critical consideration of strengths and limitations. Further, use of linked data should be considered for some studies, after taking into account all relevant factors.
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.