Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Guiding the reporting of studies that use routinely collected health data

Hude Quan and Tyler Williamson
CMAJ May 17, 2016 188 (8) 559-560; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.151470
Hude Quan
Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: hquan@ucalgary.ca
Tyler Williamson
Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

See also page 555 and www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.160410, www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.150653 and CMAJ Open article www.cmajopen.ca/content/4/2/E132

In the last decade, there has been an explosion of digital information, and health information is no exception. Aided by the development of technology, vast amounts of data are being generated in health care, including abstracted clinical data from hospital discharge summaries, physician billing data and patient health information from electronic medical records (EMRs). These data are rich in clinical information on diagnoses, procedures, medications, laboratory results and imaging information. Although such data are collected for health care management or clinical care, they have enormous potential for use in disease surveillance and answering clinical questions through research-based hypotheses. However, routinely collected data are often limited because data structures and medical terminologies are not standardized across jurisdictions and countries. For example, information can be entered as structured and coded data (e.g., using International Classification of Disease [ICD] codes) or as unstructured text (e.g., in EMRs).

The challenges posed by analyzing data with different terminologies, quality and collection methods have led to the development of a new reporting statement and checklist: the RECORD (REporting of Studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data).1 Based on the well-known STROBE statement (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology), the RECORD statement expands on specific items in STROBE that are applicable to routinely collected health data. For example, it expands the requirement of reporting all variables by encouraging authors to report a complete list of the codes and algorithms used throughout the analysis (e.g., in classifying the outcome and exposure). In some scenarios, data linkages are based on a unique identifier and are deterministic; however, in the absence of a unique patient identifier across data resources, a probability linkage method is frequently adopted. The completeness and accuracy of the probability linkage may affect selection bias in the analysis; therefore, the RECORD statement suggests that the method and rate of linkage should be reported to allow readers to judge the risk of selection bias.

The importance of the RECORD statement is proportional to the value of routinely collected data for generating new knowledge and advancing health science, which is increasingly being recognized by many countries worldwide. For instance, data linkage, analysis and reporting centres have been established in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.2 They are pioneering the collection and use of big health data and are showing their power and impact. Great strides have been made, particularly in four major categories: disease surveillance, health services and outcome research, monitoring population health and health system performance, and precision medicine.

In Canada, two major groups are engaged in chronic disease surveillance: the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System and the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network. The former uses ICD-coded hospital administrative data and physician claims data,3 and the latter extracts primary care EMR data.4

The Interdisciplinary Chronic Disease Collaboration in Alberta has been a leader in health services and outcome research by establishing population-based cohorts to study hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease and vascular disease using routinely collected administrative health data. The group has analyzed these data to explore interactions among chronic diseases, such as the effect of diabetes on myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality.5

Traditional data-collection methods (e.g., surveys and chart reviews) have become too costly to be used frequently to monitor population health and health system performance. The Canadian Institute for Health Information has maximized efficiency by centralizing huge amounts of national, routinely collected data from which numerous reports on population health status and health system performance in Canada have been generated.6

An innovative and promising use of routinely collected health data is in precision medicine; that is, precise prognostication for an individual patient based on the treatment received and his or her sociodemographic, genetic, environmental and clinical characteristics.7 Public health organizations aim to create precise forecasts of infectious disease epidemics, monitor preventive intervention programs, and measure and address health disparities. Such activities require large volumes of high-quality data and corresponding analytics.

Maximizing the health benefits of routinely collected data requires the development of methods to avoid “garbage in and garbage out.” New ways of harmonizing, linking and structuring data will help to generate new knowledge. In addition, systematic strategies to assess and improve data quality, such as automated programs to detect coding errors, should be developed and implemented. Machine learning, which uses statistical and computer science methods to identify patterns and characteristics within empirical data, can lead to new knowledge and improve decision-making, all of which will result ultimately in better health care delivery with greater operational efficiency.

The RECORD statement makes at least three important contributions to aid users of routinely collected health data: (a) a method for assessing the quality of the reporting, (b) a framework for development of a research protocol and (c) a guide for best practices in manuscript writing. Authors of studies who use and analyze routinely collected data should apply the RECORD statement when reporting their specific data analyses. The consistent and regular use of the statement should improve quality, clarity and replicability of their work. The statement is internationally applicable and should enhance the quality of reporting in this area. It provides an important framework for the reporting of results generated from the analysis of routinely collected data.

Key points
  • Routinely collected health data have been widely analyzed for many purposes, particularly surveillance and research.

  • There are inconsistencies in the reporting of results arising from the analysis of routinely collected data.

  • Studies conducted using routinely collected data should be reported following the new RECORD (REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data) statement.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Hude Quan participated in the modified Delphi exercise used in the development of the RECORD statement. No other competing interests were declared.

  • This article was solicited and has not been peer reviewed.

  • Contributors: Hude Quan drafted the commentary, and Tyler Williamson revised it. Both authors approved the final version to be published and agreed to act as guarantors of the work.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Benchimol EI,
    2. Smeeth L,
    3. Guttmann A,
    4. et al
    . The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med 2015;12:e1001885.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Lucyk K,
    2. Lu M,
    3. Sajobi T,
    4. et al
    . Administrative health data in Canada: lessons from history. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2015; 15:69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Robitaille C,
    2. Dai S,
    3. Waters C,
    4. et al
    . Diagnosed hypertension in Canada: incidence, prevalence and associated mortality. CMAJ 2012;184:E49–56.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Williamson T,
    2. Green ME,
    3. Birtwhistle R,
    4. et al
    . Validating the 8 CPCSSN case definitions for chronic disease surveillance in a primary care database of electronic health records. Ann Fam Med 2014;12:367–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Tonelli M,
    2. Muntner P,
    3. Lloyd A,
    4. et al
    . Risk of coronary events in people with chronic kidney disease compared with those with diabetes: a population-level cohort study. Lancet 2012;380:807–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Trends in income-related health inequalities in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2015. Available: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/trends_in_income_related_inequalities_in_canada_2015_en.pdf (accessed 2016 Jan. 20).
  7. ↵
    1. Ashley EA
    . The precision medicine initiative: a new national effort. JAMA 2015;313:2119–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 188 (8)
CMAJ
Vol. 188, Issue 8
17 May 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Guiding the reporting of studies that use routinely collected health data
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Guiding the reporting of studies that use routinely collected health data
Hude Quan, Tyler Williamson
CMAJ May 2016, 188 (8) 559-560; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151470

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Guiding the reporting of studies that use routinely collected health data
Hude Quan, Tyler Williamson
CMAJ May 2016, 188 (8) 559-560; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.151470
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Harnessing big data for health
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Time to dismantle systemic anti-Black racism in medicine in Canada
  • Preventing the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into school settings
  • How should we move for health? The case for the 24-hour movement paradigm
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Areas of Focus
    • Health services
  • Topics
    • Research methods & statistics
    • Health technology
    • Epidemiology & epidemiological methods

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire