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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Nicholls, Stuart G., Quach, Pauline, Von Elm, Erik, Guttmann, Astrid, Moher, David, Petersen, Irene, Sørensen, Henrik T., Smeeth, Liam, Langan, Sinéad M., Benchimol, Eric I.
Format: Dataset
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Nicholls, Stuart G.
Quach, Pauline
Von Elm, Erik
Guttmann, Astrid
Moher, David
Petersen, Irene
Sørensen, Henrik T.
Smeeth, Liam
Langan, Sinéad M.
Benchimol, Eric I.
description 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_str_mv 10.5061/dryad.7d65n
format Dataset
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>datacite_PQ8</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7d65n</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_5061_dryad_7d65n</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7d65n3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVj7FOw0AQRK-hQEDFD2xJhBJsoSRSWseILpKV3lq86_ik8611t2fJ38bPYVvwAVRbzMybHWOe82y3zw75G4UJaXekw97fm-8zKkIbpD_BtWOoykGCWn8DaSFqIssRCvGUGmWCFBfp8hU5jKhWPDqoJM0BdtO2Eed49XWMTjtY4S9VWVyq82bGoXLPXk_Qs3ZCEVoJgCHYccGiQiM-so8pAnoC4pGdDIsW-O-vW7LEbi6Mj-auRRf56fc-mNeP8lp8bmmubaxyPQTbY5jqPKuX6fU6vV6nv__P_QOC3200</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>dataset</recordtype></control><display><type>dataset</type><title>Data from: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines</title><source>DataCite</source><creator>Nicholls, Stuart G. ; Quach, Pauline ; Von Elm, Erik ; Guttmann, Astrid ; Moher, David ; Petersen, Irene ; Sørensen, Henrik T. ; Smeeth, Liam ; Langan, Sinéad M. ; Benchimol, Eric I.</creator><creatorcontrib>Nicholls, Stuart G. ; Quach, Pauline ; Von Elm, Erik ; Guttmann, Astrid ; Moher, David ; Petersen, Irene ; Sørensen, Henrik T. ; Smeeth, Liam ; Langan, Sinéad M. ; Benchimol, Eric I.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.5061/dryad.7d65n</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dryad</publisher><subject>documentation ; electronic health data ; epidemiologic methods ; health administrative data ; information dissemination ; knowledge dissemination ; Medical journals ; observational research ; peer review journals ; primary care databases ; publishing ; reporting guidelines ; routinely collected health data ; scientific journals</subject><creationdate>2016</creationdate><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>776,1888</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://commons.datacite.org/doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7d65n$$EView_record_in_DataCite.org$$FView_record_in_$$GDataCite.org$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nicholls, Stuart G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quach, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Von Elm, Erik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guttmann, Astrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petersen, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sørensen, Henrik T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeeth, Liam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langan, Sinéad M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benchimol, Eric I.</creatorcontrib><title>Data from: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines</title><description>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.</description><subject>documentation</subject><subject>electronic health data</subject><subject>epidemiologic methods</subject><subject>health administrative data</subject><subject>information dissemination</subject><subject>knowledge dissemination</subject><subject>Medical journals</subject><subject>observational research</subject><subject>peer review journals</subject><subject>primary care databases</subject><subject>publishing</subject><subject>reporting guidelines</subject><subject>routinely collected health data</subject><subject>scientific journals</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>dataset</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>dataset</recordtype><sourceid>PQ8</sourceid><recordid>eNqVj7FOw0AQRK-hQEDFD2xJhBJsoSRSWseILpKV3lq86_ik8611t2fJ38bPYVvwAVRbzMybHWOe82y3zw75G4UJaXekw97fm-8zKkIbpD_BtWOoykGCWn8DaSFqIssRCvGUGmWCFBfp8hU5jKhWPDqoJM0BdtO2Eed49XWMTjtY4S9VWVyq82bGoXLPXk_Qs3ZCEVoJgCHYccGiQiM-so8pAnoC4pGdDIsW-O-vW7LEbi6Mj-auRRf56fc-mNeP8lp8bmmubaxyPQTbY5jqPKuX6fU6vV6nv__P_QOC3200</recordid><startdate>20160408</startdate><enddate>20160408</enddate><creator>Nicholls, Stuart G.</creator><creator>Quach, Pauline</creator><creator>Von Elm, Erik</creator><creator>Guttmann, Astrid</creator><creator>Moher, David</creator><creator>Petersen, Irene</creator><creator>Sørensen, Henrik T.</creator><creator>Smeeth, Liam</creator><creator>Langan, Sinéad M.</creator><creator>Benchimol, Eric I.</creator><general>Dryad</general><scope>DYCCY</scope><scope>PQ8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160408</creationdate><title>Data from: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines</title><author>Nicholls, Stuart G. ; Quach, Pauline ; Von Elm, Erik ; Guttmann, Astrid ; Moher, David ; Petersen, Irene ; Sørensen, Henrik T. ; Smeeth, Liam ; Langan, Sinéad M. ; Benchimol, Eric I.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7d65n3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>datasets</rsrctype><prefilter>datasets</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>documentation</topic><topic>electronic health data</topic><topic>epidemiologic methods</topic><topic>health administrative data</topic><topic>information dissemination</topic><topic>knowledge dissemination</topic><topic>Medical journals</topic><topic>observational research</topic><topic>peer review journals</topic><topic>primary care databases</topic><topic>publishing</topic><topic>reporting guidelines</topic><topic>routinely collected health data</topic><topic>scientific journals</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nicholls, Stuart G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quach, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Von Elm, Erik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guttmann, Astrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petersen, Irene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sørensen, Henrik T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeeth, Liam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langan, Sinéad M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benchimol, Eric I.</creatorcontrib><collection>DataCite (Open Access)</collection><collection>DataCite</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nicholls, Stuart G.</au><au>Quach, Pauline</au><au>Von Elm, Erik</au><au>Guttmann, Astrid</au><au>Moher, David</au><au>Petersen, Irene</au><au>Sørensen, Henrik T.</au><au>Smeeth, Liam</au><au>Langan, Sinéad M.</au><au>Benchimol, Eric I.</au><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>DATA</ristype><title>Data from: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines</title><date>2016-04-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><abstract>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.</abstract><pub>Dryad</pub><doi>10.5061/dryad.7d65n</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier DOI: 10.5061/dryad.7d65n
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_7d65n
source DataCite
subjects documentation
electronic health data
epidemiologic methods
health administrative data
information dissemination
knowledge dissemination
Medical journals
observational research
peer review journals
primary care databases
publishing
reporting guidelines
routinely collected health data
scientific journals
title Data from: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement: methods for arriving at consensus and developing reporting guidelines
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-20T14%3A20%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-datacite_PQ8&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.au=Nicholls,%20Stuart%20G.&rft.date=2016-04-08&rft_id=info:doi/10.5061/dryad.7d65n&rft_dat=%3Cdatacite_PQ8%3E10_5061_dryad_7d65n%3C/datacite_PQ8%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true