Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2009 Jan 27:338:b81.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.b81.

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

Richard L Tannen  1 , Mark G Weiner, Dawei Xie
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

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

Richard L Tannen et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Selection process for participants in database studies
None
Fig 2 Comparisons between hazard ratios from randomised controlled trials (RCT) and adjusted hazard ratios for respective database studies. Data plotted as natural logarithms, so 0 on x axis indicates no difference between exposed and unexposed cohort. Database adjusted hazard ratios shown with both Cox and prior event rate ratio (PERR) adjustment analysis. Results are shown for myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularisation (CABG/PTCA). GPRD=general practice research database
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-124. - PubMed
    1. MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AMS. A systematic review of comparisons of effect-sizes derived from randomized and non-randomised studies. Health Technol Assess 2000;4:1-154. - PubMed
    1. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1878-86. - PubMed
    1. Concato J, Horwitz RI. Beyond randomized versus observational studies. Lancet 2004;363:1660-1. - PubMed
    1. Sacks HS. Observational studies and randomized trials. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1195. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms