BMC Medical Research Methodology (Jun 2023)

Evaluation of reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data based on RECORD: systematic review

  • Ran Zhao,
  • Wen Zhang,
  • ZeDan Zhang,
  • Chang He,
  • Rong Xu,
  • XuDong Tang,
  • Bin Wang

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01960-2
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Objective Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) have been paid more and more attention in recent years. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data (RWD) published between 2013 and 2021 and analyze the possible factors. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline and Embase through the OVID interface for cohort studies published from 2013 to 2021 on April 29, 2022. Studies aimed at comparing the effectiveness or safety of exposure factors in the real-world setting were included. The evaluation was based on the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Agreement for inclusion and evaluation was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the possible factors, including the release of RECORD, journal IFs, and article citations. Bonferroni’s correction was conducted for multiple comparisons. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to display the changes in report quality over time. Results 187 articles were finally included. The mean ± SD of the percentage of adequately reported items in the 187 articles was 44.7 ± 14.3 with a range of 11.1–87%. Of 23 items, the adequate reporting rate of 10 items reached 50%, and the reporting rate of some vital items was inadequate. After Bonferroni’s correction, the reporting of only one item significantly improved after the release of RECORD and there was no significant improvement in the overall report quality. For interrupted time series analysis, there were no significant changes in the slope (p = 0.42) and level (p = 0.12) of adequate reporting rate. The journal IFs and citations were respectively related to 2 areas and the former significantly higher in high-reporting quality articles. Conclusion The endorsement of the RECORD cheklist was generally inadequate in cohort studies using RWD and has not improved in recent years. We encourage researchers to endorse relevant guidelines when utilizing RWD for research.

Keywords