Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40299382›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Linkage of Clinical Trial Data to Routinely Collected Data Sources: A Scoping Review.

Mehdi NajafZadeh, Ana Fernández Oromendia, Mehmet Burcu, Ben Mcconnochie, Ella Kim, Thomas Vaccaro, Elisabetta Patorno

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Mehdi NajafZadehMedidata Solutions, A Dassault System Company, Boston, MABoston, Massachusetts.
Ana Fernández OromendiaMedidata Solutions, A Dassault System Company, Boston, MABoston, Massachusetts.
Mehmet BurcuMerck & Co Inc, Rahway, New Jersey.
Ben McconnochieMedidata Solutions, A Dassault System Company, Boston, MABoston, Massachusetts.
Ella KimMedidata Solutions, A Dassault System Company, Boston, MABoston, Massachusetts.
Thomas VaccaroMedidata Solutions, A Dassault System Company, Boston, MABoston, Massachusetts.
Elisabetta PatornoDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Novel approaches to improve comparative effectiveness research of medical and surgical weight reduction strategies in clinical practiceR01DK138036 · NIDDK · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Elisabetta Patorno · 2024 to 2026
$2.3M
FDA HHS U01 FD007213NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK138036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Patients who participate in clinical trials generate valuable routinely collected data (eg, medical records, electronic health records, claims databases, disease registries, or vital statistics) through their routine interactions with the health care system before, during, and after the trial. When this routinely collected data is linked at the participant level, it can supplement active data collection in the trial and provide deeper insights into the benefits, risks, and costs of treatments. Objective: To review clinical trials linked to routinely collected data in various countries, identifying the use cases and designs of these linkage studies. Evidence Review: Research articles that reported the linkage of clinical trials to medical records, electronic health records, claims databases, disease registries, or vital statistics in their title or abstract were searched for in PubMed and MEDLINE. The search covered the period from January 1, 2016, through December 30, 2023. Opinion pieces, study protocols, or studies that involved interventions other than medications, dietary supplements, vaccines, devices, procedures, or diagnostics (eg, behavioral interventions) were excluded. Study eligibility and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers to ensure the accuracy of findings. Findings: Of the 990 abstracts initially screened, a full text review was conducted for 147 articles. In total, 71 studies were included in the results, including 42 medication, vaccine, and dietary supplement trials (59.2%) and 29 device, procedure, or diagnostic trials (40.8%). Of these 71 studies, 24 (32.4%) were conducted in the US. In 32 studies (45.1%), consent for linkage was obtained prospectively as part of the main trial, while 33 studies (46.5%) received a waiver of authorization from the respective ethical review boards. The most frequent use cases of linkage to were posttrial long-term follow-up (22 studies [31.0%]), capturing primary or secondary outcomes of trials (19 studies [26.8%]), validation of routinely collected data outcomes (17 studies [23.9%]), and measuring health care resource utilization and cost in trials (12 studies [16.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the linkage of patients' clinical trial data to routinely collected data has been implemented in several trials for various use cases and that most studies obtained consent for linkage prospectively as part of the main trial or received a waiver of authorization from ethical review boards. These findings demonstrate the feasibility and provide an overview of the use cases for linking trials to routinely collected data.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsHumans

Identifiers

PMID40299382
PMCPMC12042059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.