Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 16, 2025

Observational Study Protocol for Repeated Clinical Examination and Critical Care Ultrasonography Within the Simple Intensive Care Studies
Published on: January 16, 2019
Identification and Validation of Major Cardiovascular Events in the United Kingdom Data Sources Included in a
Ana Ruigómez1, Estel Plana2, Alicia Gilsenan3
1Centro Español de Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica (CEIFE), Madrid, Spain.
Introduction:
A multinational post-authorization safety study assessed cardiovascular safety in initiators of prucalopride for chronic constipation compared with a matched cohort of polyethylene glycol 3350 initiators. The primary safety outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), a composite of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or in-hospital cardiovascular death. We report the validation process for MACE endpoints in United Kingdom (UK) data sources: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), and the Information Services Division (ISD) Scotland.
Methods:
Modified electronic algorithms from prior research identified potential MACE cases. Validation followed a common protocol, adapted for each database, with all information anonymized: (1) direct confirmation via linkage to hospital records (CPRD GOLD); (2) requests for additional clinical information through questionnaires (CPRD GOLD), free-text (THIN), or abstraction of hospital records (ISD); (3) manual review of electronic records of potential events retrieved by the algorithm (CPRD GOLD/THIN); and (4) event adjudication by three clinicians, blinded to exposure, for all remaining events.
Results:
Electronic algorithms identified 260 potential MACE cases: 38 confirmed via linkage to hospital records (CPRD GOLD), 56 ruled out as non-cardiovascular death cases (THIN), and three unavailable for review (ISD), leaving 163 potential cases. After manual review with additional information (steps 2 and 3), 45 were considered noncases (CPRD GOLD/THIN). Upon final adjudication (step 4), remaining potential events were adjudicated as definite (n = 62), probable (n = 10), possible (n = 13), or noncases (n = 33).
Conclusions:
Given the limitations of relying solely on computer algorithms to identify cardiovascular outcomes, validation with clinical review is essential to guide interpretation.
More Related Videos
07:31Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
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,...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Cardiovascular Drugs: Classification based on Therapeutic Indications
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Drug Regulation