PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Li, Chenyu
AU  - Alsheikh, Abdulrahman M.
AU  - Robinson, Karen A.
AU  - Lehmann, Harold P.
TI  - Use of Recommended Real-World Methods for Electronic Health Record Data Analysis Has Not Improved Over 10 Years
AID  - 10.1101/2023.06.21.23291706
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.06.21.23291706
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/22/2023.06.21.23291706.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/22/2023.06.21.23291706.full
AB  - Background and Purpose To document the use of recommended Real-World Methods (RWM) in Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based analysis in biomedical research over 10 years.Methods Sampled-article scoping review of methods used in EHR-based biomedical research. We developed a search strategy to identify reports of biomedical research based on EHR data and systematically sampled articles from different ranges of years (epochs) between 2010 and 2019 to establish a trajectory of use of recommended RWM. Methods were classified by 3 phases of research: pre-analytic (missing data), analytic (specific methods), and post-analytic (sensitivity analysis). The primary outcome was the proportion of studies using recommended RWM within each epoch. Meta-regressions were performed to examine trends.Data Synthesis Five epochs were defined between 2010 and 2019 with 35 studies selected per epoch as pre-defined by a sample size calculation. Of the 175 articles reviewed, 70 (40.%) reported recommended RWM in any of the 3 phases of research. The breakdown for the most recent year in the dataset, 2019, was 14.% (95% confidence interval 2.7%, 26.%), 14.% (2.7%, 26.%), and 11.% (0.89%, 22.%), for assessing missing data, using specific methods, and performing sensitivity analysis, respectively. Only 3.4 % of studies used appropriate methods for each phase of research. Meta-regression slopes for each of the three phases were statistically 0.Limitation and Conclusions The underuse of recommended Real-World Methods (RWM) in EHR-based biomedical research remains a concern, with less than 50% of reports using these methods in any phase of research over the last decade. This lack of use indicates a continued risk of bias in the EHR-based literature.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yeshttps://github.com/ChenyuL/RWE-in-EHR-Data-Analysis https://github.com/ChenyuL/RWE-in-EHR-Data-Analysis