ArticleClinical epidemiology2024
Using Routinely Collected Electronic Healthcare Record Data to Investigate Fibrotic Multimorbidity in England.
Article in Clinical 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.
- Article
- Article
- Reframing EHR Policy in China: Towards Balanced Implementation and Ethical Foundations.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Validating ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes for Guillain-Barré Syndrome in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Claims Database [Letter].Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Imperfect wound healing sets the stage for chronic diseases.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- Using Routinely Collected Electronic Healthcare Record Data to Investigate Fibrotic Multimorbidity in England [Letter].Clinical epidemiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electronic healthcare records (EHRs) are used to document diagnoses, symptoms, tests, and prescriptions. Though not primarily collected for research purposes, owing to the size of the data as well as the depth of information collected, they have been used extensively to conduct epidemiological research. The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is an EHR database containing representative data of the UK population with regard to age, sex, race, and social deprivation measures. Fibrotic conditions are characterised by excessive scarring, contributing towards organ dysfunction and eventual organ failure. Fibrosis is associated with ageing as well as many other factors, it is hypothesised that fibrotic conditions are caused by the same underlying pathological mechanism. We calculated the prevalence of fibrotic conditions (as defined in a previous Delphi survey of clinicians) as well as the prevalence of fibrotic multimorbidity (the proportion of people with multiple fibrotic conditions). Methods: We included a random sample of 993,370 UK adults, alive, and enrolled at a UK general practice, providing data to the CPRD Aurum database as of 1st of January 2015. Individuals had to be eligible for linkage to hospital episode statistics (HES) and ONS death registration. We calculated the point prevalence of fibrotic conditions and multi-morbid fibrosis on the 1st of January 2015. Using death records of those who died in 2015, we investigated the prevalence of fibrosis associated death. We explored the most commonly co-occurring fibrotic conditions and determined the settings in which diagnoses were commonly made (primary care, secondary care or after death). Results: The point prevalence of any fibrotic condition was 21.46%. In total, 6.00% of people had fibrotic multimorbidity. Of the people who died in 2015, 34.82% had a recording of a fibrotic condition listed on their death certificate. Conclusion: The key finding was that fibrotic multimorbidity affects approximately 1 in 16 people.
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.