Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods

Powell, GA, Bonnett, LJ ORCID: 0000-0002-6981-9212, Smith, CT, Hughes, DA ORCID: 0000-0001-8247-7459, Williamson, PR ORCID: 0000-0001-9802-6636 and Marson, AG ORCID: 0000-0002-6861-8806
(2021) Using routinely recorded data in a UK RCT: a comparison to standard prospective data collection methods. TRIALS, 22 (1). 429-.

Access the full-text of this item by clicking on the Open Access link.


<h4>Background</h4>Routinely recorded data held in electronic health records can be used to inform the conduct of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, limitations with access and accuracy have been identified.<h4>Objective</h4>Using epilepsy as an exemplar condition, we assessed the attributes and agreement of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using case report forms in a UK RCT assessing antiepileptic drug treatments for individuals newly diagnosed with epilepsy.<h4>Methods</h4>The case study RCT is the Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II) trial, a pragmatic, UK multicentre RCT assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drugs as treatments for epilepsy. Ninety-eight of 470 eligible participants provided consent for access to routinely recorded secondary care data that were retrieved from NHS Digital Hospital Episode Statistics (N=71) and primary and secondary care data from The Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (N=27). We assessed data items relevant to the identification of individuals eligible for inclusion in SANAD II, baseline and follow-up visits. The attributes of routinely recorded data were assessed including the degree of missing data. The agreement between routinely recorded data and data collected on case report forms in SANAD II was assessed using calculation of Cohen's kappa for categorical data and construction of Bland-Altman plots for continuous data.<h4>Results</h4>There was a significant degree of missing data in the routine record for 15 of the 20 variables assessed, including all clinical variables. Agreement was poor for the majority of comparisons, including the assessments of seizure occurrence and adverse events. For example, only 23/62 (37%) participants had a date of first-ever seizure identified in routine datasets. Agreement was satisfactory for the date of prescription of antiepileptic drugs and episodes of healthcare resource use.<h4>Conclusions</h4>There are currently significant limitations preventing the use of routinely recorded data for participant identification and assessment of clinical outcomes in epilepsy, and potentially other chronic conditions. Further research is urgently required to assess the attributes, agreement, additional benefits, cost-effectiveness and 'optimal mix' of routinely recorded data compared to data collected using standard methods such as case report forms at clinic visits for people with epilepsy.<h4>Trial registration</h4>Standard and New Antiepileptic Drugs II (SANAD II (EudraCT No: 2012-001884-64, registered 05/09/2012; ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN30294119 , registered 03/07/2012)).

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Routine data, Administrative data, Agreement, Randomised controlled trial
Divisions: Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Clinical Directorate
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Institute of Population Health
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences > Institute of Systems, Molecular and Integrative Biology
Depositing User: Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited: 12 Aug 2021 08:58
Last Modified: 18 Jan 2023 21:33
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05294-6
Open Access URL:
Related URLs: