Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 5, 2026

Author Spotlight: Enhancing Rheumatoid Arthritis Research Through HR-pQCT Imaging Analysis
Published on: October 6, 2023
Variation in methods, results and reporting in electronic health record-based studies evaluating routine care in
Samantha S R Crossfield1, Lana Yin Hui Lai1, Sarah R Kingsbury1,2
1Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Objective:
To perform a systematic review examining the variation in methods, results, reporting and risk of bias in electronic health record (EHR)-based studies evaluating management of a common musculoskeletal disease, gout.
Methods:
Two reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for all EHR-based studies published by February 2019 investigating gout pharmacological treatment. Information was extracted on study design, eligibility criteria, definitions, medication usage, effectiveness and safety data, comprehensiveness of reporting (RECORD), and Cochrane risk of bias (registered PROSPERO CRD42017065195).
Results:
We screened 5,603 titles/abstracts, 613 full-texts and selected 75 studies including 1.9M gout patients. Gout diagnosis was defined in 26 ways across the studies, most commonly using a single diagnostic code (n = 31, 41.3%). 48.4% did not specify a disease-free period before 'incident' diagnosis. Medication use was suboptimal and varied with disease definition while results regarding effectiveness and safety were broadly similar across studies despite variability in inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness of reporting was variable, ranging from 73% (55/75) appropriately discussing the limitations of EHR data use, to 5% (4/75) reporting on key data cleaning steps. Risk of bias was generally low.
Conclusion:
The wide variation in case definitions and medication-related analysis among EHR-based studies has implications for reported medication use. This is amplified by variable reporting comprehensiveness and the limited consideration of EHR-relevant biases (e.g. data adequacy) in study assessment tools. We recommend accounting for these biases and performing a sensitivity analysis on case definitions, and suggest changes to assessment tools to foster this.
More Related Videos
10:38Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
07:22Glycemic Impact on Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms on Physical, Radiographic, and Inflammatory Markers among Individuals Aged 50 and Over with Diabetes
Published on: March 7, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VII: EMR
Genome-wide Association Studies-GWAS
GWAS does not require the identification of the target gene involved in...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
Rheumatic Heart Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Drug Dosing in Renal Diseases: Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate Based on Serum Creatinine Concentration