Data Quality Assessment for Comparative Effectiveness Research in Distributed Data Networks

Overview

Journal Med Care

Specialty Health Services

Date 2013 Jun 25

PMID 23793049

Citations 74

Authors

Jeffrey S Brown

Michael Kahn

Sengwee Toh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Electronic health information routinely collected during health care delivery and reimbursement can help address the need for evidence about the real-world effectiveness, safety, and quality of medical care. Often, distributed networks that combine information from multiple sources are needed to generate this real-world evidence.

Objective: We provide a set of field-tested best practices and a set of recommendations for data quality checking for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in distributed data networks.

Methods: Explore the requirements for data quality checking and describe data quality approaches undertaken by several existing multi-site networks.

Results: There are no established standards regarding how to evaluate the quality of electronic health data for CER within distributed networks. Data checks of increasing complexity are often used, ranging from consistency with syntactic rules to evaluation of semantics and consistency within and across sites. Temporal trends within and across sites are widely used, as are checks of each data refresh or update. Rates of specific events and exposures by age group, sex, and month are also common.

Discussion: Secondary use of electronic health data for CER holds promise but is complex, especially in distributed data networks that incorporate periodic data refreshes. The viability of a learning health system is dependent on a robust understanding of the quality, validity, and optimal secondary uses of routinely collected electronic health data within distributed health data networks. Robust data quality checking can strengthen confidence in findings based on distributed data network.

Citing Articles

Navigating electronic health record accuracy by examination of sex incongruent conditions.

Cai L, DeBerardinis R, Zhan X, Xiao G, Xie Y J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024; 31(12):2849-2856.

PMID: 39254529 PMC: 11631140. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocae236.

Assessing Real-World Data From Electronic Health Records for Health Technology Assessment: The SUITABILITY Checklist: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

Fleurence R, Kent S, Adamson B, Tcheng J, Balicer R, Ross J Value Health. 2024; 27(6):692-701.

PMID: 38871437 PMC: 11182651. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.01.019.

Fitness-for-use of Retrospective Multicenter Electronic Health Records to Conduct Outcome Analysis for Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis.

Wang Z, Song X, Waitman L, Hyams J, Denson L Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(11):e37395.

PMID: 38489703 PMC: 10939680. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037395.

Electronic health record data quality variability across a multistate clinical research network.

Mohamed Y, Song X, McMahon T, Sahil S, Zozus M, Wang Z J Clin Transl Sci. 2023; 7(1):e130.

PMID: 37396818 PMC: 10308424. DOI: 10.1017/cts.2023.548.

Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.

Lewis A, Weiskopf N, Abrams Z, Foraker R, Lai A, Payne P J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023; 30(10):1730-1740.

PMID: 37390812 PMC: 10531113. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocad120.

References

Toh S, Platt R, Steiner J, Brown J . Comparative-effectiveness research in distributed health data networks. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011; 90(6):883-7. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2011.236. View

Go A, Magid D, Wells B, Sung S, Cassidy-Bushrow A, Greenlee R . The Cardiovascular Research Network: a new paradigm for cardiovascular quality and outcomes research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009; 1(2):138-47. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.801654. View

Davis R, Kolczak M, Lewis E, Nordin J, Goodman M, Shay D . Active surveillance of vaccine safety: a system to detect early signs of adverse events. Epidemiology. 2005; 16(3):336-41. DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000155506.05636.a4. View

Hennessy S, Leonard C, Palumbo C, Newcomb C, Bilker W . Quality of Medicaid and Medicare data obtained through Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Med Care. 2007; 45(12):1216-20. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318148435a. View

McClellan M . Drug safety reform at the FDA--pendulum swing or systematic improvement?. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(17):1700-2. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp078057. View

Schneeweiss S, Avorn J . A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005; 58(4):323-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012. View

Suissa S, Garbe E . Primer: administrative health databases in observational studies of drug effects--advantages and disadvantages. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007; 3(12):725-32. DOI: 10.1038/ncprheum0652. View

Behrman R, Benner J, Brown J, McClellan M, Woodcock J, Platt R . Developing the Sentinel System--a national resource for evidence development. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(6):498-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1014427. View

Pace W, Cifuentes M, Valuck R, Staton E, Brandt E, West D . An electronic practice-based network for observational comparative effectiveness research. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(5):338-40. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-5-200909010-00140. View

10.

Hennessy S, Bilker W, Weber A, Strom B . Descriptive analyses of the integrity of a US Medicaid claims database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003; 12(2):103-11. DOI: 10.1002/pds.765. View

11.

Hall G, Sauer B, Bourke A, Brown J, Reynolds M, LoCasale R . Guidelines for good database selection and use in pharmacoepidemiology research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011; 21(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2229. View

12.

McGraw D, Rosati K, Evans B . A policy framework for public health uses of electronic health data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012; 21 Suppl 1:18-22. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2319. View

13.

Hornbrook M, Hart G, Ellis J, Bachman D, Ansell G, Greene S . Building a virtual cancer research organization. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005; (35):12-25. DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi033. View

14.

Curtis L, Weiner M, Boudreau D, Cooper W, Daniel G, Nair V . Design considerations, architecture, and use of the Mini-Sentinel distributed data system. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012; 21 Suppl 1:23-31. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2336. View

15.

Platt R, Carnahan R, Brown J, Chrischilles E, Curtis L, Hennessy S . The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program: status and direction. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012; 21 Suppl 1:1-8. DOI: 10.1002/pds.2343. View

16.

Brown P, Warmington V . Info-tsunami: surviving the storm with data quality probes. Inform Prim Care. 2004; 11(4):229-33. DOI: 10.14236/jhi.v11i4.569. View

17.

Kahn M, Raebel M, Glanz J, Riedlinger K, Steiner J . A pragmatic framework for single-site and multisite data quality assessment in electronic health record-based clinical research. Med Care. 2012; 50 Suppl:S21-9. PMC: 3833692. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318257dd67. View

18.

Velentgas P, Bohn R, Brown J, Chan K, Gladowski P, Holick C . A distributed research network model for post-marketing safety studies: the Meningococcal Vaccine Study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2008; 17(12):1226-34. DOI: 10.1002/pds.1675. View

19.

Platt R, Davis R, Finkelstein J, Go A, Gurwitz J, Roblin D . Multicenter epidemiologic and health services research on therapeutics in the HMO Research Network Center for Education and Research on Therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002; 10(5):373-7. DOI: 10.1002/pds.607. View

20.

Yih W, Kulldorff M, Fireman B, Shui I, Lewis E, Klein N . Active surveillance for adverse events: the experience of the Vaccine Safety Datalink project. Pediatrics. 2011; 127 Suppl 1:S54-64. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-1722I. View