Consensus Statements for the Use of Administrative Health Data in Rheumatic Disease Research and Surveillance
Consensus Statements for the Use of Administrative Health Data in Rheumatic Disease Research and Surveillance
复制标题
DOI：
10.3899/jrheum.120835
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Lacaille, Diane
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bernatsky, Sasha;Lix, Lisa;Lacaille, Diane
Objective.管理数据越来越多地用于风湿性疾病的研究和监测。然而，文献综述显示，进行风湿性疾病观察性研究的方法缺乏一致性，这种情况可能导致无法比较的结果。我们的目的是开发最佳实践共识声明使用的管理数据在加拿大风湿性疾病的研究和监测。我们召集了52名决策者、流行病学家、临床医生和研究人员参加为期2天的研讨会。在此之前，与会者组成工作组，检查3个最佳实践类别：病例定义，流行病学方法，合并症和结果测量。这些小组对关键议题进行了系统或范围审查。在讲习班上，介绍了从审查中获得的证据，并利用建立共识的技巧编写了最佳做法说明。发言经过介绍、讨论、修订（如有必要），然后付诸表决。拟订了13项最佳做法共识声明，并以协商一致方式获得核可。对于第一类，这些共识声明解决了风湿性疾病病例定义和病例确定偏倚的验证技术。流行病学方法的共识声明侧重于混杂因素和药物暴露测量。对于合并症和结局测量，为多种疾病制定了共识声明，包括骨质疏松症和脆性骨折、癌症、感染、心血管疾病和肾脏疾病。行政数据的优势和局限性，确定在每个主题。我们的最佳实践共识声明与其他最新指南一致，包括风湿性疾病生物制剂注册指南，但解决了管理数据特有的其他问题。继续开展的工作侧重于向多个受众传播这些共识声明。（2012年11月1日首次发布; J Rheumol 2013;40：66-73; doi：10.3899/jrheum.120835）
Objective. Administrative data are increasingly being used for research and surveillance about rheumatic diseases. However, literature reviews have revealed a lack of consistency in methods for conducting observational rheumatic disease studies, a situation that can lead to findings that cannot be compared. Our purpose was to develop best-practice consensus statements about the use of administrative data for rheumatic disease research and surveillance in Canada.Methods. We convened 52 decision makers, epidemiologists, clinicians, and researchers to a 2-day workshop. Prior to this, participants formed working groups to examine 3 best-practice-categories: case definitions, epidemiology methods, and comorbidity and outcomes measurement. The groups conducted systematic or scoping reviews on key topics. At the workshop, evidence from the reviews was presented and consensus-building techniques were used to develop the best-practice statements. The statements were presented, discussed, revised (as needed), and then subjected to voting.Results. Thirteen best-practice consensus statements were developed and endorsed by consensus. For the first category, these consensus statements addressed validation techniques for rheumatic disease case definitions and case ascertainment bias. The consensus statements for epidemiology methods focused on confounding and drug exposure measurement. For comorbidity and outcomes measurement, consensus statements were developed for multiple conditions, including osteoporosis and fragility fractures, cancer, infections, cardiovascular disease, and renal disease. Strengths and limitations of administrative data were identified in relation to each topic.Conclusion. Our best-practice consensus statements are consistent with other recent guidelines, including those for rheumatic disease biologics registries, but address additional issues specific to administrative data. Continuing work focuses on disseminating these consensus statements to multiple audiences. (First Release Nov 1 2012; J Rheumatol 2013;40:66-73; doi:10.3899/jrheum.120835)