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
. 2015 Oct 6;12(10):e1001885.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885. eCollection 2015 Oct.

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement

Eric I Benchimol  1 , Liam Smeeth  2 , Astrid Guttmann  3 , Katie Harron  2 , David Moher  4 , Irene Petersen  5 , Henrik T Sørensen  6 , Erik von Elm  7 , Sinéad M Langan  2 ; RECORD Working Committee
Collaborators, Affiliations

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement

Eric I Benchimol et al. PLoS Med. .

Abstract

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DM serves on the editorial board of PLOS Medicine. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Population hierarchy in studies using routinely collected data sources.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Spasoff RA. Epidemiologic Methods for Health Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 1999.
    1. Morrato EH, Elias M, Gericke CA. Using population-based routine data for evidence-based health policy decisions: lessons from three examples of setting and evaluating national health policy in Australia, the UK and the USA. Journal of public health (Oxford, England). 2007;29(4):463–71. - PubMed
    1. De Coster C, Quan H, Finlayson A, Gao M, Halfon P, Humphries KH, et al. Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data: report from an international consortium. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6:77 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hemkens LG, Benchimol EI, Langan SM, Briel M, Kasenda B, Januel JM, et al., editors. Reporting of studies using routinely collected health data: systematic literature analysis (oral abstract presentation). REWARD / EQUATOR Conference 2015; 2015 September 28–30; Edinburgh, UK.
    1. Benchimol EI, Manuel DG, To T, Griffiths AM, Rabeneck L, Guttmann A. Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(8):821–9. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.006 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types