ReviewNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2024
Embedding routine health care data in clinical trials: with great power comes great responsibility.
Review in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Dutch cardiomyopathy registry (DCR); rationale and registry design.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2026Article
- Routine data are not 'dirty' data: how to approach using routine data for research.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Is digitalization still an uncharted territory for palliative care? Use of electronic patient records and assessment instruments in German specialist palliative care: results of an online survey.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review of machine learning for heart disease prediction: challenges, trends, ethical considerations, and future directions.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- Design and rationale of the Engage-HF study: the impact of a gamified engagement toolkit on participation and engagement in a heart failure registry.European heart journal. Digital health · 2024Article
- Diverging from the traditional RCT paradigm.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) are vital for medical progress. Unfortunately, 'traditional' RCTs are expensive and inherently slow. Moreover, their generalisability has been questioned. There is considerable overlap in routine health care data (RHCD) and trial-specific data. Therefore, integration of RHCD in an RCT has great potential, as it would reduce the effort and costs required to collect data, thereby overcoming some of the major downsides of a traditional RCT. However, use of RHCD comes with other challenges, such as privacy issues, as well as technical and practical barriers. Here, we give a current overview of related initiatives on national cardiovascular registries (Netherlands Heart Registration, Heart4Data), showcasing the interrelationships between and the relevance of the different registries for the practicing physician. We then discuss the benefits and limitations of RHCD use in the setting of a pragmatic RCT from a cardiovascular perspective, illustrated by a case study in heart failure.
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.