ArticleBMJ open2024
Pooling of primary care electronic health record (EHR) data on Huntington's disease (HD) and cancer: establishing comparability of two large UK databases.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence and prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea and narcolepsy in the UK: a population-based descriptive study.Thorax · 2026Article
- Systematic mapping of rare genetic disease studies using UK primary care electronic health records.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Review
- Management of older adults consulting in GP surgery practices with back pain in UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum: population based study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore whether UK primary care databases arising from two different software systems can be feasibly combined, by comparing rates of Huntington's disease (HD, which is rare) and 14 common cancers in the two databases, as well as characteristics of people with these conditions.
designDescriptive study.
settingPrimary care electronic health records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases, with linked hospital admission and death registration data.
participants4986 patients with HD and 1 294 819 with an incident cancer between 1990 and 2019. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence and prevalence of HD by calendar period, age group and region, and annual age-standardised incidence of 14 common cancers in each database, and in a subset of 'overlapping' practices which contributed to both databases. Characteristics of patients with HD or incident cancer: medical history, recent prescribing, healthcare contacts and database follow-up.
resultsIncidence and prevalence of HD were slightly higher in CPRD GOLD than CPRD Aurum, but with similar trends over time. Cancer incidence in the two databases differed between 1990 and 2000, but converged and was very similar thereafter. Participants in each database were most similar in terms of medical history (median standardised difference, MSD 0.03 (IQR 0.01-0.03)), recent prescribing (MSD 0.06 (0.03-0.10)) and demographics and general health variables (MSD 0.05 (0.01-0.09)). Larger differences were seen for healthcare contacts (MSD 0.27 (0.10-0.41)), and database follow-up (MSD 0.39 (0.19-0.56)).
conclusionsDifferences in cancer incidence trends between 1990 and 2000 may relate to use of a practice-level data quality filter (the 'up-to-standard' date) in CPRD GOLD only. As well as the impact of data curation methods, differences in underlying data models can make it more challenging to define exactly equivalent clinical concepts in each database. Researchers should be aware of these potential sources of variability when planning combined database studies and interpreting results.
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.