Hannah R Whittaker, Steven J Kiddle, Jennifer K Quint
{"title":"Challenges and Pitfalls of Using Repeat Spirometry Recordings in Routine Primary Care Data to Measure FEV<sub>1</sub> Decline in a COPD Population.","authors":"Hannah R Whittaker, Steven J Kiddle, Jennifer K Quint","doi":"10.2147/POR.S319965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Electronic healthcare records (EHR) are increasingly used in epidemiological studies but are often viewed as lacking quality compared to randomised control trials and prospective cohorts. Studies of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often use the rate of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV<sub>1</sub>) decline as an outcome; however, its definition and robustness in EHR have not been investigated. We aimed to investigate how the rate of FEV<sub>1</sub> decline differs by the criteria used in an EHR database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics were used. Patient populations were defined using 8 sets of criteria around repeated FEV<sub>1</sub> measurements. At a minimum, patients had a diagnosis of COPD, were ≥35 years old, were current or ex-smokers, and had data recorded from 2004. FEV<sub>1</sub> measurements recorded during follow-up were identified. Thereafter, eight populations were defined based on criteria around: i) the exclusion of patients or individual measurements with potential measurement error; ii) minimum number of FEV<sub>1</sub> measurements; iii) minimum time interval between measurements; iv) specific timing of measurements; v) minimum follow-up time; and vi) the use of linked data. For each population, the rate of FEV<sub>1</sub> decline was estimated using mixed linear regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For 7/8 patient populations, rates of FEV<sub>1</sub> decline (age and sex adjusted) were similar and ranged from -18.7mL/year (95% CI -19.2 to -18.2) to -16.5mL/year (95% CI -17.3 to -15.7). Rates of FEV<sub>1</sub> decline in populations that excluded patients with potential measurement error ranged from -79.4mL/year (95% CI -80.7 to -78.2) to -46.8mL/year (95% CI -47.6 to -46.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FEV<sub>1</sub> decline remained similar in a COPD population regardless of number of FEV<sub>1</sub> measurements, time intervals between measurements, follow-up period, exclusion of specific FEV<sub>1</sub> measurements, and linkage to HES. However, exclusion of individuals with questionable data led to selection bias and faster rates of decline.</p>","PeriodicalId":20399,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","volume":" ","pages":"119-130"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/58/11/por-12-119.PMC8420778.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatic and Observational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/POR.S319965","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: Electronic healthcare records (EHR) are increasingly used in epidemiological studies but are often viewed as lacking quality compared to randomised control trials and prospective cohorts. Studies of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often use the rate of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) decline as an outcome; however, its definition and robustness in EHR have not been investigated. We aimed to investigate how the rate of FEV1 decline differs by the criteria used in an EHR database.
Methods: Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics were used. Patient populations were defined using 8 sets of criteria around repeated FEV1 measurements. At a minimum, patients had a diagnosis of COPD, were ≥35 years old, were current or ex-smokers, and had data recorded from 2004. FEV1 measurements recorded during follow-up were identified. Thereafter, eight populations were defined based on criteria around: i) the exclusion of patients or individual measurements with potential measurement error; ii) minimum number of FEV1 measurements; iii) minimum time interval between measurements; iv) specific timing of measurements; v) minimum follow-up time; and vi) the use of linked data. For each population, the rate of FEV1 decline was estimated using mixed linear regression.
Results: For 7/8 patient populations, rates of FEV1 decline (age and sex adjusted) were similar and ranged from -18.7mL/year (95% CI -19.2 to -18.2) to -16.5mL/year (95% CI -17.3 to -15.7). Rates of FEV1 decline in populations that excluded patients with potential measurement error ranged from -79.4mL/year (95% CI -80.7 to -78.2) to -46.8mL/year (95% CI -47.6 to -46.0).
Conclusion: FEV1 decline remained similar in a COPD population regardless of number of FEV1 measurements, time intervals between measurements, follow-up period, exclusion of specific FEV1 measurements, and linkage to HES. However, exclusion of individuals with questionable data led to selection bias and faster rates of decline.
背景:电子医疗记录(EHR)越来越多地用于流行病学研究,但与随机对照试验和前瞻性队列相比,往往被认为缺乏质量。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者的研究通常使用1秒用力呼气量(FEV1)下降率作为结果;然而,它的定义和鲁棒性在电子病历中尚未被研究。我们的目的是调查EHR数据库中使用的标准对FEV1下降率的影响。方法:采用临床实践研究数据链和医院事件统计方法。患者群体的定义采用8套标准,围绕重复的FEV1测量。至少,诊断为COPD的患者,年龄≥35岁,目前或已戒烟,并有2004年以来的数据记录。确定随访期间记录的FEV1测量值。此后,根据以下标准定义了8个人群:1)排除可能存在测量误差的患者或个体测量;ii) FEV1最小测量次数;测量之间的最小时间间隔;Iv)测量的具体时间;V)最短随访时间;vi)关联数据的使用。对于每个种群,使用混合线性回归估计FEV1下降率。结果:在7/8患者群体中,FEV1下降率(年龄和性别调整)相似,范围为-18.7mL/年(95% CI -19.2至-18.2)至-16.5mL/年(95% CI -17.3至-15.7)。在排除潜在测量误差患者的人群中,FEV1下降率的范围为-79.4mL/年(95% CI -80.7至-78.2)至-46.8mL/年(95% CI -47.6至-46.0)。结论:无论FEV1测量次数、测量间隔时间、随访时间、排除特定FEV1测量以及与HES的关联如何,COPD人群的FEV1下降仍然相似。然而,排除数据有问题的个体会导致选择偏差和更快的下降速度。
期刊介绍:
Pragmatic and Observational Research is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes data from studies designed to closely reflect medical interventions in real-world clinical practice, providing insights beyond classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While RCTs maximize internal validity for cause-and-effect relationships, they often represent only specific patient groups. This journal aims to complement such studies by providing data that better mirrors real-world patients and the usage of medicines, thus informing guidelines and enhancing the applicability of research findings across diverse patient populations encountered in everyday clinical practice.