Comparison of Information Recorded in MINAP, GPRD and HES: a CALIBER Study
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01569139|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : April 2, 2012
Last Update Posted : October 2, 2015
|Condition or disease|
This study is part of the CALIBER (Cardiovascular disease research using linked bespoke studies and electronic records) programme funded over 5 years from the NIHR and Wellcome Trust. The central theme of the CALIBER research is linkage of the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) with primary care (GPRD) and other resources. The overarching aim of CALIBER is to better understand the aetiology and prognosis of specific coronary phenotypes across a range of causal domains, particularly where electronic records provide a contribution beyond traditional studies. CALIBER has received both Ethics approval (ref 09/H0810/16) and ECC approval (ref ECC 2-06(b)/2009 CALIBER dataset).
Specific aims are as follows:
- To validate the linkage between the three databases (General Practice Research Database (GPRD), Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)) (checking age, sex and unique identifiers across databases) and establish a cohort of patients with acceptable registration status for further analysis.
To describe the ways that MIs are recorded between the three datasets based on the 'best case definition' in each database.
- Starting from a 'best case definition' MINAP MI definition (based on the CALIBER phenotype algorithm, which itself is based on the international definition of MI), to examine the way in which the MINAP MI is recorded in GPRD and HES. This analysis will examine STEMI and NSTEMI separately.
- Starting from a 'best case definition' algorithm for MI in GPRD (to be decided by GPRD/LSHTM/UCL), to examine the ways in which this MI is recorded in MINAP and HES.
- Starting from a 'best case definition' choice of ICD-10 codes for MI in HES, to examine the ways in which this MI is recorded in MINAP and GPRD.
- To examine predictors of non-concordance between the three datasets.
- To develop recommendations for a new gold standard definition of MI in each of the databases, based on aims 1-3.
A detailed protocol for this study is available on request. This study has been approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) and by the MINAP Academic Group (MAG).
R. Boggon, GPRD; Dr S. Denaxas, UCL; Professor H. Hemingway, UCL; E. Herrett, LSHTM; Dr A. Shah, UCL; Professor A. Timmis; Professor T. van Staa, GPRD.
|Study Type :||Observational|
|Actual Enrollment :||21000 participants|
|Official Title:||Comparison of the Information Recorded in the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project, the General Practice Research Database and Hospital Episode Statistics: a CALIBER Study|
|Study Start Date :||December 2011|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||December 2014|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||December 2014|
Myocardial infarction, as identified in the GPRD data.
Myocardial infarction, as identified in MINAP data.
Myocardial infarction, as identified in HES data.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01569139
|London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine|
|London, United Kingdom, WC1E 7HT|
|General Practice Research Database|
|London, United Kingdom|
|University College, London|
|London, United Kingdom|