Cited by 217Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines

Open access
Nicholls, Stuart G., Quach, Pauline, von Elm, Erik, Guttmann, Astrid, Moher, David, Petersen, Irene, Sørensen, Henrik T., Smeeth, Liam +2 more·2015·PLOS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. METHODS: Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period. RESULTS: The qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0125620

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Medicine. 2010; 7(2): e1000217 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217.t001 20169112 PMC2821895 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nicholls, S. G., Quach, P., von Elm, E., Guttmann, A., Moher, D., Petersen, I., Sørensen, H. T., Smeeth, L., Langan, S. M., & Benchimol, E. I.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Benchimol, Eric I.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2015-05-12
Volume
10
Issue
5
Pages
e0125620
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1866803133
Cited by
217
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 7
FWCI
13.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Aarhus Universitet
  • University of Ottawa
  • Wellcome Trust (098504)
  • Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR/CS/010/014, NF-SI-0510-10090)
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (130512)
  • Lundbeckfonden (R155-2014-2647)
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF14SA0015794)
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (130512)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K006584/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
routinely collected health data, reporting guidelines, stakeholder consensus, Delphi method, observational studies, data characteristics, STROBE
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Database Management Systems, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Guidelines as Topic, Consensus, Observational Studies as Topic

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