The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Spatial distribution of clinical computer systems in primary care in England in 2016 and implications for primary care electronic medical record databases: a cross-sectional population study
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: UK primary care databases (PCDs) are used by researchers worldwide to inform clinical practice. These databases have been primarily tied to single clinical computer systems, but little is known about the adoption of these systems by primary care practices or their geographical representativeness. We explore the spatial distribution of clinical computing systems and discuss the implications for the longevity and regional representativeness of these resources. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: English primary care clinical computer systems. Participants: 7526 general practices in August 2016. Methods: Spatial mapping of family practices in England in 2016 by clinical computer system at two geographical levels, the lower Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG, 209 units) and the higher National Health Service regions (14 units). Data for practices included numbers of doctors, nurses and patients, and area deprivation. Results: Of 7526 practices, Egton Medical Information Systems (EMIS) was used in 4199 (56%), SystmOne in 2552 (34%) and Vision in 636 (9%). Great regional variability was observed for all systems, with EMIS having a stronger presence in the West of England, London and the South; SystmOne in the East and some regions in the South; and Vision in London, the South, Greater Manchester and Birmingham. Conclusions: PCDs based on single clinical computer systems are geographically clustered in England. For example, Clinical Practice Research Datalink and The Health Improvement Network, the most popular primary care databases in terms of research outputs, are based on the Vision clinical computer system, used by <10% of practices and heavily concentrated in three major conurbations and the South. Researchers need to be aware of the analytical challenges posed by clustering, and barriers to accessing alternative PCDs need to be removed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
QResearch is the most nationally representative United Kingdom database, while CPRD is more geographically restricted.
“While both CPRD and QResearch are large United Kingdom databases, QResearch is the most nationally representative, while CPRD is more geographically restricted.36”
From Anticholinergic Drug Exposure and the Risk of Dementia: A Nested Case-Control Study (2019) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Benchimol, E. I., Smeeth, L., Guttmann, A., Harron, K., Moher, D., Petersen, I., Sørensen, H. T., von Elm, E., Langan, S. M., & RECORD Working Committee (2015) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 · Cited by 5,749
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Millman, 1995, ABC of medical computing. computers in general practice--I, BMJ, 311, 800, 10.1136/bmj.311.7008.800 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003190 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMhpr041294 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1097/01.JAC.0000324664.88131.d2 · DOI
- Tai, 2007, Variation in clinical coding lists in UK general practice: a barrier to consistent data entry?, Inform Prim Care, 15, 143
- Springate, 2014, ClinicalCodes: an online clinical codes repository to improve the validity and reproducibility of research using electronic medical records, PLoS One, 9, 10.1371/journal.pone.0099825 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1070 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012785 · DOI
- Carbonari, 2015, Use of demographic and pharmacy data to identify patients included within both the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and The Health Improvement Network (THIN), Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf, 24, 999, 10.1002/pds.3844 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.j2497 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.328.7447.1043 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.d508 · DOI
- 10.1136/jech-2017-209195 · DOI
- Bojke, 2013, Regional variation in the productivity of the English national health service, Health Econ, 22, 194, 10.1002/hec.2794 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.02.002 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD · DOI · Paper page
- 10.18637/jss.v055.i02 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.g330 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Data resource profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum
Wolf, A., Dedman, D., Campbell, J., Booth, H., Lunn, D., Chapman, J., & Myles, P. (2019) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyz034 · Cited by 861
Anticholinergic Drug Exposure and the Risk of Dementia: A Nested Case-Control Study
Coupland, C. A. C., Hill, T., Dening, T., Morriss, R., Moore, M., & Hippisley-Cox, J. (2019) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0677 · Cited by 637
Metadata
- Authors
- Kontopantelis, E., Stevens, R. J., Helms, P. J., Edwards, D., Doran, T., & Ashcroft, D. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- University of York (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Kontopantelis, Evangelos
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2018-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e020738
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5855245
- OpenAlex
- W2772187823
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 16.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- primary care, electronic health records, spatial distribution, regional representativeness, general practice, EMIS, SystmOne, vision, primary care databases, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Health Improvement Network, geographical clustering, area deprivation, England
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Computer Systems, Cross-Sectional Studies, England, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Electronic Health Records, General Practice, Spatial Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review