Published 27 January 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b81
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b81

Research

Use of primary care electronic medical record database in drug efficacy research on cardiovascular outcomes: comparison of database and randomised controlled trial findings

¹ University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 295 John Morgan Building, 36th and Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Objectives To determine whether observational studies that use an electronic medical record database can provide valid results of therapeutic effectiveness and to develop new methods to enhance validity.

Design Data from the UK general practice research database (GPRD) were used to replicate previously performed randomised controlled trials, to the extent that was feasible aside from randomisation.

Studies Six published randomised controlled trials.

Main outcome measure Cardiovascular outcomes analysed by hazard ratios calculated with standard biostatistical methods and a new analytical technique, prior event rate ratio (PERR) adjustment.

Results In nine of 17 outcome comparisons, there were no significant differences between results of randomised controlled trials and database studies analysed using standard biostatistical methods or PERR analysis. In eight comparisons, Cox adjusted hazard ratios in the database differed significantly from the results of the randomised controlled trials, suggesting unmeasured confounding. In seven of these eight, PERR adjusted hazard ratios differed significantly from Cox adjusted hazard ratios, whereas in five they didn’t differ significantly, and in three were more similar to the hazard ratio from the randomised controlled trial, yielding PERR results more similar to the randomised controlled trial than Cox (P<0.05).

Conclusions Although observational studies using databases are subject to unmeasured confounding, our new analytical technique (PERR), applied here to cardiovascular outcomes, worked well to identify and reduce the effects of such confounding. These results suggest that electronic medical record databases can be useful to investigate therapeutic effectiveness.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Any casualties in the clash of randomised and observational evidence?

John P A Ioannidis, Anna-Bettina Haidich, and Joseph Lau
BMJ 2001 322: 879-880. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Methods in health services research: Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies

Martin McKee, Annie Britton, Nick Black, Klim McPherson, Colin Sanderson, and Chris Bain
BMJ 1999 319: 312-315. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials

Regina Kunz and Andrew D Oxman
BMJ 1998 317: 1185-1190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care

Nick Black
BMJ 1996 312: 1215-1218. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Lionis, C., Symvoulakis, E. K, Vardavas, C. I (2009). Implementing family practice research in countries with limited resources: a stepwise model experienced in Crete, Greece. Fam Pract 0: cmp078v1-cmp078 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Danchin, N. (2009). Still a long way to go to defeating atherosclerotic disease: a call to arms!. Eur Heart J 30: 2297-2299 [Full text]  
• Weiner, M. G., Embi, P. J. (2009). Toward Reuse of Clinical Data for Research and Quality Improvement: The End of the Beginning?. ANN INTERN MED 151: 359-360 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Correction of facts

John Parkinson
bmj.com, 14 Feb 2009 [Full text]

Re: Correction of facts

Richard L Tannen
bmj.com, 15 Feb 2009 [Full text]

Limitations of prior event rate ratio adjustment

Arlene Gallagher, et al.
bmj.com, 17 Feb 2009 [Full text]

Re: Re: Correction of facts

Richard L Tannen, et al.
bmj.com, 26 Feb 2009 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>