8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assumptions made when preparing drug exposure data for analysis have an impact on results: An unreported step in pharmacoepidemiology studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Real‐world data for observational research commonly require formatting and cleaning prior to analysis. Data preparation steps are rarely reported adequately and are likely to vary between research groups. Variation in methodology could potentially affect study outcomes. This study aimed to develop a framework to define and document drug data preparation and to examine the impact of different assumptions on results.

          Methods

          An algorithm for processing prescription data was developed and tested using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The impact of varying assumptions was examined by estimating the association between 2 exemplar medications (oral hypoglycaemic drugs and glucocorticoids) and cardiovascular events after preparing multiple datasets derived from the same source prescription data. Each dataset was analysed using Cox proportional hazards modelling.

          Results

          The algorithm included 10 decision nodes and 54 possible unique assumptions. Over 11 000 possible pathways through the algorithm were identified. In both exemplar studies, similar hazard ratios and standard errors were found for the majority of pathways; however, certain assumptions had a greater influence on results. For example, in the hypoglycaemic analysis, choosing a different variable to define prescription end date altered the hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) from 1.77 (1.56‐2.00) to 2.83 (1.59‐5.04).

          Conclusions

          The framework offers a transparent and efficient way to perform and report drug data preparation steps. Assumptions made during data preparation can impact the results of analyses. Improving transparency regarding drug data preparation would increase the repeatability, reproducibility, and comparability of published results.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Recent advances in the utility and use of the General Practice Research Database as an example of a UK Primary Care Data resource.

          Since its inception in the mid-1980s, the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) has undergone many changes but remains the largest validated and most utilised primary care database in the UK. Its use in pharmacoepidemiology stretches back many years with now over 800 original research papers. Administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency since 2001, the last 5 years have seen a rebuild of the database processing system enhancing access to the data, and a concomitant push towards broadening the applications of the database. New methodologies including real-world harm-benefit assessment, pharmacogenetic studies and pragmatic randomised controlled trials within the database are being implemented. A substantive and unique linkage program (using a trusted third party) has enabled access to secondary care data and disease-specific registry data as well as socio-economic data and death registration data. The utility of anonymised free text accessed in a safe and appropriate manner is being explored using simple and more complex techniques such as natural language processing.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Data Cleaning: Detecting, Diagnosing, and Editing Data Abnormalities

            In this policy forum the authors argue that data cleaning is an essential part of the research process, and should be incorporated into study design.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How accurate are diagnoses for rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the general practice research database?

              To identify characteristics that predict a valid rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) diagnosis among RA- and JIA-coded individuals in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), and to assess limitations of this type of diagnostic validation. Four RA and 2 JIA diagnostic groups were created with differing strengths of evidence of RA/JIA (Group 1 = strongest evidence), based on RA/JIA medical codes. Individuals were sampled from each group and clinical and prescription data were extracted from anonymized hospital/practice correspondence and electronic records. American College of Rheumatology and International League of Associations for Rheumatology diagnostic criteria were used to validate diagnoses. A data-derived diagnostic algorithm that maximized sensitivity and specificity was identified using logistic regression. Among 223 RA-coded individuals, the diagnostic algorithm classified individuals as having RA if they had an appropriate GPRD disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescription or 3 other GPRD characteristics: >1 RA code during followup, RA diagnostic Group 1 or 2, and no later alternative diagnostic code. This algorithm had >80% sensitivity and specificity when applied to a test data set. Among 101 JIA-coded individuals, the strongest predictor of a valid diagnosis was a Group 1 diagnostic code (>90% sensitivity and specificity). Validity of an RA diagnosis among RA-coded GPRD individuals appears high for patients with specific characteristics. The findings are important for both interpreting results of published GPRD studies and identifying RA/JIA patients for future GPRD-based research. However, several limitations were identified, and further debate is needed on how best to validate chronic disease diagnoses in the GPRD.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                will.dixon@manchester.ac.uk
                Journal
                Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
                Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf
                10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1557
                PDS
                Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1053-8569
                1099-1557
                17 April 2018
                July 2018
                : 27
                : 7 ( doiID: 10.1002/pds.v27.7 )
                : 781-788
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Centre for Musculoskeletal Research, School of Biological Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre The University of Manchester Manchester UK
                [ 2 ] Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada
                [ 3 ] Clinical and Health Informatics Research Group McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada
                [ 4 ] Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA USA
                [ 5 ] Health eResearch Centre, Farr Institute for Health Informatics Research The University of Manchester Manchester UK
                [ 6 ] Faculty of Science, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology Utrecht University Utrecht The Netherlands
                [ 7 ] Department of Medicine McGill University Montreal Quebec Canada
                [ 8 ] NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre Manchester UK
                [ 9 ] Rheumatology Department Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust Salford UK
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                W. G. Dixon, Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, UK.

                Email: will.dixon@ 123456manchester.ac.uk

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7263-2897
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1550-6528
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0147-0712
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2391-5575
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9363-742X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5881-4857
                Article
                PDS4440 PDS-17-0498.R1
                10.1002/pds.4440
                6055712
                29667263
                b4602bd0-52ba-4239-b547-4f2a3f2182f6
                © 2018 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 09 November 2017
                : 21 February 2018
                : 19 March 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 7, Tables: 0, Pages: 8, Words: 3849
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
                Award ID: MOP ‐ 111166
                Funded by: Medical Research Council
                Award ID: G0902272
                Funded by: National Institute for Health Research
                Award ID: Manchester BRC
                Funded by: Arthritis Research UK
                Award ID: 20380
                Categories
                Original Report
                Original Reports
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                pds4440
                July 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.4.3 mode:remove_FC converted:23.07.2018

                Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical medicine
                data preparation,pharmacoepidemiology,reproducibility,transparency

                Comments

                Comment on this article