Search

Objectives To explore whether UK primary care databases arising from two different software systems can be feasibly combined, by comparing rates of Huntington’s disease (HD, which is rare) and 14 common cancers in the two databases, as well as characteristics of people with these conditions.Design Descriptive study.Setting Primary care electronic health records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases, with linked hospital admission and death registration data.Participants 4986 patients with HD and 1 294 819 with an incident cancer between 1990 and 2019.Primary and secondary outcome measures Incidence and prevalence of HD by calendar period, age group and region, and annual age-standardised incidence of 14 common cancers in each database, and in a subset of ‘overlapping’ practices which contributed to both databases. Characteristics of patients with HD or incident cancer: medical history, recent prescribing, healthcare contacts and database follow-up.Results Incidence and prevalence of HD were slightly higher in CPRD GOLD than CPRD Aurum, but with similar trends over time. Cancer incidence in the two databases differed between 1990 and 2000, but converged and was very similar thereafter. Participants in each database were most similar in terms of medical history (median standardised difference, MSD 0.03 (IQR 0.01–0.03)), recent prescribing (MSD 0.06 (0.03–0.10)) and demographics and general health variables (MSD 0.05 (0.01–0.09)). Larger differences were seen for healthcare contacts (MSD 0.27 (0.10–0.41)), and database follow-up (MSD 0.39 (0.19–0.56)).Conclusions Differences in cancer incidence trends between 1990 and 2000 may relate to use of a practice-level data quality filter (the ‘up-to-standard’ date) in CPRD GOLD only. As well as the impact of data curation methods, differences in underlying data models can make it more challenging to define exactly equivalent clinical concepts in each database. Researchers should be aware of these potential sources of variability when planning combined database studies and interpreting results.

Objective To identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources.Design A systematic review of published studies.Data sources Pubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening.Study selection Observational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases.Results 6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies.Conclusions Comparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models.