| アブストラクト | Ongoing evaluation of any electronic health data source is critical to assess suitability for its use in medical research. In addition, familiarity with a data source's history and recording practices is important for making informed data source selection, study design choices, and interpretation of results. In this commentary, the authors discuss three studies that assessed different aspects of the quality and completeness of information contained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum compared to the well-established CPRD GOLD and to other linked data sources, with the aim to describe insights gained through these data quality assessments. Our findings support the view that CPRD Aurum and GOLD are both valuable tools for studies based on information recorded in primary care but should not be used without critical consideration of strengths and limitations. Further, use of linked data should be considered for some studies, after taking into account all relevant factors. |
|---|
| ジャーナル名 | Clinical epidemiology |
|---|
| Pubmed追加日 | 2023/12/21 |
|---|
| 投稿者 | Jick, Susan; Vasilakis-Scaramozza, Catherine; Persson, Rebecca; Neasham, David; Kafatos, George; Hagberg, Katrina Wilcox |
|---|
| 組織名 | Epidemiology, Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program, Lexington, MA, USA.;Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.;Center for Observational Research, Amgen Ltd, Uxbridge, UK. |
|---|
| Pubmed リンク | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38126004/ |
|---|
