Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345273›Full record

ArticleNIHR open research2024

Checklist and guidance on creating codelists for routinely collected health data research.

Julian Matthewman, Kirsty Andresen, Anne Suffel, Liang-Yu Lin, Anna Schultze, John Tazare, Krishnan Bhaskaran, Elizabeth Williamson, Ruth Costello, Jennifer Quint and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NIHR open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Julian Matthewman *London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3291-2381
Kirsty Andresen *London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Anne Suffel *London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9021-0487
Liang-Yu LinLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4720-6738
Anna SchultzeLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.
John TazareLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Krishnan BhaskaranLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Elizabeth WilliamsonLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Ruth CostelloLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Jennifer QuintImperial College London, London, England, UK.
Helen StrongmanLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, England, WC1E 7HT, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8739-4601

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Codelists are required to extract meaningful information on characteristics and events from routinely collected health data such as electronic health records. Research using routinely collected health data relies on codelists to define study populations and variables, thus, trustworthy codelists are important. Here, we provide a checklist, in the style of commonly used reporting guidelines, to help researchers adhere to best practice in codelist development and sharing. Methods: Based on a literature search and a workshop with researchers experienced in the use of routinely collected health data, we created a set of recommendations that are 1. broadly applicable to different datasets, research questions, and methods of codelist creation; 2. easy to follow, implement and document by an individual researcher, and 3. fit within a step-by-step process. We then formatted these recommendations into a checklist. Results: We have created a 10-step checklist, comprising 28 items, with accompanying guidance on each step. The checklist advises on which metadata to provide, how to define a clinical concept, how to identify and evaluate existing codelists, how to create new codelists, and how to review, check, finalise, and publish a created codelist. Conclusions: Use of the checklist can reassure researchers that best practice was followed during the development of their codelists, increasing trust in research that relies on these codelists and facilitating wider re-use and adaptation by other researchers.

Indexed as

checklistclinical codescodelistscodesetselectronic health recordsreporting guidancereproducibilityvaluesets

Identifiers

PMID39345273
PMCPMC11437289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.