Routinely collected patient data in neurology research: a systematic mapping review.
Electronic health record
Neurology
Routinely collected data
Journal
BMC neurology
ISSN: 1471-2377
Titre abrégé: BMC Neurol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Nov 2020
27 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
24
01
2020
accepted:
09
11
2020
entrez:
27
11
2020
pubmed:
28
11
2020
medline:
3
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This review focuses on neurology research which uses routinely collected data. The number of such studies is growing alongside the expansion of data collection. We aim to gain a broad picture of the scope of how routine healthcare data have been utilised. This study follows a systematic mapping review approach which does not make a judgement on the quality of the papers included in the review, thereby enabling a complete overview of the field. Of 4481 publications retrieved, 386 met the eligibility criteria for this study. These publications covered a wide range of conditions, but the majority were based on one or only a small number of neurological conditions. In particular, publications concerned with three discrete areas of neurological practice - multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy/seizure and Parkinson's disease - accounted for 60% of the total. MS was the focus of the highest proportion of eligible studies (35%), yet in the recent Global Burden of Neurological Disease study it ranks only 14th out of 15 neurological disorders for DALY rates. In contrast, migraine is the neurological disorder with the highest ranking of DALYs globally (after stroke) and yet it was represented by only 4% of eligible studies. This review shows that there is a disproportionately large body of literature pertaining to relatively rare disorders, and a correspondingly small body of literature describing more common conditions. Therefore, there is potential for future research to redress this balance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This review focuses on neurology research which uses routinely collected data. The number of such studies is growing alongside the expansion of data collection. We aim to gain a broad picture of the scope of how routine healthcare data have been utilised.
METHODS
METHODS
This study follows a systematic mapping review approach which does not make a judgement on the quality of the papers included in the review, thereby enabling a complete overview of the field.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 4481 publications retrieved, 386 met the eligibility criteria for this study. These publications covered a wide range of conditions, but the majority were based on one or only a small number of neurological conditions. In particular, publications concerned with three discrete areas of neurological practice - multiple sclerosis (MS), epilepsy/seizure and Parkinson's disease - accounted for 60% of the total. MS was the focus of the highest proportion of eligible studies (35%), yet in the recent Global Burden of Neurological Disease study it ranks only 14th out of 15 neurological disorders for DALY rates. In contrast, migraine is the neurological disorder with the highest ranking of DALYs globally (after stroke) and yet it was represented by only 4% of eligible studies.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that there is a disproportionately large body of literature pertaining to relatively rare disorders, and a correspondingly small body of literature describing more common conditions. Therefore, there is potential for future research to redress this balance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33243167
doi: 10.1186/s12883-020-01993-w
pii: 10.1186/s12883-020-01993-w
pmc: PMC7694309
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
431Subventions
Organisme : Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
ID : EP/R513076/1
Références
JAMA. 2014 Jan 22-29;311(4):365-7
pubmed: 24449049
Neurology. 2013 Jul 30;81(5):479-86
pubmed: 23783750
Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2017 Fall;23(4):333-342
pubmed: 29339909
Clin Med (Lond). 2011 Feb;11(1):101-2
pubmed: 21404803
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
pubmed: 8555924
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 29;375(13):1216-9
pubmed: 27682033
BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 5;8(8):e025266
pubmed: 30082372
Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108
pubmed: 19490148
Pract Neurol. 2011 Jun;11(3):134-5
pubmed: 21551106
Eur J Neurol. 2007 Mar;14(3):241-7
pubmed: 17355542
Health Policy. 2014 Dec;118(3):292-303
pubmed: 25217838
Neurohospitalist. 2016 Oct;6(4):141-146
pubmed: 27695594
Lancet Neurol. 2019 May;18(5):459-480
pubmed: 30879893
PeerJ. 2018 Jul 09;6:e5183
pubmed: 30013845
Annu Rev Public Health. 2016;37:61-81
pubmed: 26667605
Isr Med Assoc J. 2016 Jul;18(7):386-390
pubmed: 28471558
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Feb 28;17(1):24
pubmed: 28241760
J Emerg Med. 2019 Oct;57(4):543-549
pubmed: 31376947
BMJ. 2001 Dec 22-29;323(7327):1461-2
pubmed: 11751355
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2010 Nov;112(9):747-51
pubmed: 20646830
PLoS One. 2010 Nov 30;5(11):e15112
pubmed: 21152085
BMJ. 2012 Oct 05;345:e6702
pubmed: 23043093
BMJ. 2015 Jun 18;350:h3284
pubmed: 26088572