scholarly journals POB1 ASSESSMENT OF THE CLINICAL RISK FACTORS FOR METABOLIC SYNDROME IN A NATIONAL PRIMARY CARE ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD (EHR) DATABASE

2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. A324
Author(s):  
D Brixner ◽  
Q Said ◽  
GM Oderda
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. S29-S36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Brixner ◽  
Qayyim Said ◽  
Carmen Kirkness ◽  
Brian Oberg ◽  
Rami Ben-Joseph ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
◽  
Elizabeth Williamson ◽  
Alex J Walker ◽  
Krishnan Bhaskaran ◽  
Seb Bacon ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundEstablishing who is at risk from a novel rapidly arising cause of death, and why, requires a new approach to epidemiological research with very large datasets and timely data. Working on behalf of NHS England we therefore set out to deliver a secure and pseudonymised analytics platform inside the data centre of a major primary care electronic health records vendor establishing coverage across detailed primary care records for a substantial proportion of all patients in England. The following results are preliminary.Data sourcesPrimary care electronic health records managed by the electronic health record vendor TPP, pseudonymously linked to patient-level data from the COVID-19 Patient Notification System (CPNS) for death of hospital inpatients with confirmed COVID-19, using the new OpenSAFELY platform.Population17,425,445 adults.Time period1st Feb 2020 to 25th April 2020.Primary outcomeDeath in hospital among people with confirmed COVID-19.MethodsCohort study analysed by Cox-regression to generate hazard ratios: age and sex adjusted, and multiply adjusted for co-variates selected prospectively on the basis of clinical interest and prior findings.ResultsThere were 5683 deaths attributed to COVID-19. In summary after full adjustment, death from COVID-19 was strongly associated with: being male (hazard ratio 1.99, 95%CI 1.88-2.10); older age and deprivation (both with a strong gradient); uncontrolled diabetes (HR 2.36 95% CI 2.18-2.56); severe asthma (HR 1.25 CI 1.08-1.44); and various other prior medical conditions. Compared to people with ethnicity recorded as white, black people were at higher risk of death, with only partial attenuation in hazard ratios from the fully adjusted model (age-sex adjusted HR 2.17 95% CI 1.84-2.57; fully adjusted HR 1.71 95% CI 1.44-2.02); with similar findings for Asian people (age-sex adjusted HR 1.95 95% CI 1.73-2.18; fully adjusted HR 1.62 95% CI 1.431.82).ConclusionsWe have quantified a range of clinical risk factors for death from COVID-19, some of which were not previously well characterised, in the largest cohort study conducted by any country to date. People from Asian and black groups are at markedly increased risk of in-hospital death from COVID-19, and contrary to some prior speculation this is only partially attributable to pre-existing clinical risk factors or deprivation; further research into the drivers of this association is therefore urgently required. Deprivation is also a major risk factor with, again, little of the excess risk explained by co-morbidity or other risk factors. The findings for clinical risk factors are concordant with policies in the UK for protecting those at highest risk. Our OpenSAFELY platform is rapidly adding further NHS patients’ records; we will update and extend these results regularly.


BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037405
Author(s):  
Daniel Dedman ◽  
Melissa Cabecinha ◽  
Rachael Williams ◽  
Stephen J W Evans ◽  
Krishnan Bhaskaran ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources.DesignA systematic review of published studies.Data sourcesPubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening.Study selectionObservational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases.Results6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies.ConclusionsComparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 118 (6) ◽  
pp. e1680-e1686 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. G. Fiks ◽  
E. A. Alessandrini ◽  
A. A. Luberti ◽  
S. Ostapenko ◽  
X. Zhang ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 1558-1564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Murray ◽  
Monica A. Giovanni ◽  
Elissa Klinger ◽  
Elise George ◽  
Lucas Marinacci ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document