Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38305216›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2024

The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review.

Salma Fahridin, Neeru Agarwal, Karen Bracken, Stephen Law, Rachael L Morton

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Healthcare utilization and HIV burden among Black communities in Ontario: a matched cohort study.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Salma FahridinNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4675-9779
Neeru AgarwalNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Karen BrackenNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6085-445X
Stephen LawNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Rachael L MortonNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe demand for simplified data collection within trials to increase efficiency and reduce costs has led to broader interest in repurposing routinely collected administrative data for use in clinical trials research. The aim of this scoping review is to describe how and why administrative data have been used in Australian randomised controlled trial conduct and analyses, specifically the advantages and limitations of their use as well as barriers and enablers to accessing administrative data for use alongside randomised controlled trials.

methodsDatabases were searched to November 2022. Randomised controlled trials were included if they accessed one or more Australian administrative data sets, where some or all trial participants were enrolled in Australia, and where the article was published between January 2000 and November 2022. Titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers, and the full texts of selected studies were assessed against the eligibility criteria by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted from included articles by two reviewers using a data extraction tool.

resultsForty-one articles from 36 randomised controlled trials were included. Trial characteristics, including the sample size, disease area, population, and intervention, were varied; however, randomised controlled trials most commonly linked to government reimbursed claims data sets, hospital admissions data sets and birth/death registries, and the most common reason for linkage was to ascertain disease outcomes or survival status, and to track health service use. The majority of randomised controlled trials were able to achieve linkage in over 90% of trial participants; however, consent and participant withdrawals were common limitations to participant linkage. Reported advantages were the reliability and accuracy of the data, the ease of long term follow-up, and the use of established data linkage units. Common reported limitations were locating participants who had moved outside the jurisdictional area, missing data where consent was not provided, and unavailability of certain healthcare data.

conclusionsAs linked administrative data are not intended for research purposes, detailed knowledge of the data sets is required by researchers, and the time delay in receiving the data is viewed as a barrier to its use. The lack of access to primary care data sets is viewed as a barrier to administrative data use; however, work to expand the number of healthcare data sets that can be linked has made it easier for researchers to access and use these data, which may have implications on how randomised controlled trials will be run in future.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAustraliaDatabases, FactualData CollectionHumansadministrative dataAustraliadata linkagelinked datarandomised controlled trialsreal-world dataRoutinely collected data

Identifiers

PMID38305216
PMCPMC11304639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.