Data from: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines
Objective: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of rou...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Dataset |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative
and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are
increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health
services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and
availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light
specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of
the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in
order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using
Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Methods:
Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The
first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD
statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second
determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on
categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a
meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders
via an online commentary period. Results: The qualitative survey (76
responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13
themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall
items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms;
Characteristics of the population included in databases; and
Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of
135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied
depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following
the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided
feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. Conclusions: The
RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse
group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to
observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings
point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected
health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological
issues. |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.5061/dryad.7d65n |