Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Agreement between public register and adjudication committee outcome in a cardiovascular randomized clinical trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Pro-inflammatory biomarkers in women with non-obstructive angina pectoris and coronary microvascular dysfunction

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Acupuncture for chronic hepatitis B

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Exercise-Based Rehabilitation for Heart Failure: Cochrane Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Rationale and design of the European multicentre study on Stem Cell therapy in IschEmic Non-treatable Cardiac diseasE (SCIENCE)

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. Plasma expanders for people with cirrhosis and large ascites treated with abdominal paracentesis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

UNLABELLED: The objective of this study is to describe the agreement between randomized trial outcome assessment by committee and outcomes entirely identified through public registers.

METHODS: In the CLARICOR trial, 4,372 patients with stable coronary heart disease received a short course of clarithromycin versus placebo and were followed up for 2.6 years. The pertinent hospital records and death certificates had originally been evaluated by the adjudication committee using common definitions of outcomes mapped into a 6-category list. We now mechanically converted the International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses of the public registries into the same categories. After cross-tabulation of the committee diagnoses with National Patient Register diagnoses and Register of Causes of Death, we calculate agreement and compare the estimated intervention effects of the 2 data sets.

RESULTS: With public register data, the protocol-specified categories were slightly more frequent. Overall agreement was 74% for hospital discharges and 60% for cause of death, but the intervention effect, expressed as a hazard ratio, stayed within 4% of the value originally obtained with the adjudication committee (P≥ .35).

CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a modest agreement between formal adjudication and outcomes deducible from public registers. However, the estimated intervention effect did not differ noticeably between the 2 data sources. If studies on a wide range of public registers confirm these findings, register outcomes may be considered as a replacement for adjudication committees.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftAmerican Heart Journal
Vol/bind168
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)197-204.e4
ISSN0002-8703
DOI
StatusUdgivet - aug. 2014

ID: 44450913