Abstract
Objective The ability to reproduce the work of others is an essential part of the scientific disciplines. Replicating observational studies using electronic health record (EHR) data can be challenging due to complexities in data access, variations in EHR systems across institutions, and the potential for unaccounted confounding variables. Our aim is to identify the barriers to methods reproducibility for replication studies using EHR data.
Methods We replicated a study that examined the risk of hospitalisation following a positive COVID-19 test in individuals with diabetes. Using EHR data from the NHS England’s Secure Data Environment (SDE) covering the whole of England, UK (population 57m), we sought to replicate findings from the original study, which used data from Greater Manchester (a large urban region in the UK, population 2.9m). Both analyses were conducted in Trusted Research Environments (TREs) or SDEs, containing linked primary and secondary care data, however methods reproducibility was not straightforward. Differences between the environments that contributed to the difficulties were documented, categorized into themes, and converted into a list of recommendations for TRE/SDEs.
Results Small differences between the environments and the data sources led to several challenges in methods reproducibility. Our recommendations of TRE/SDEs should facilitate future replication studies. The recommendations include: a need for improved machine-readable metadata for EHR data; standardization of governance processes to facilitate federated analysis; mandating of code sharing; and for environments to have a support structure for data engineers and analysts. We also propose a new theme for research, “data reproducibility”, as the ability to prepare, extract and clean data from a different database for a replication study.
Conclusion Even with perfect code sharing, data reproducibility remains a challenge. Our recommendations have the potential to reduce the barriers to replication studies and therefore enhance the potential of observational studies using EHR data.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre (grant No SP/19/3/34678, awarded to Health Data Research (HDR) UK) funded co-development (with NHS England) of the secure research environment, provision of linked datasets, data access, user software licences, computational usage, and data management and wrangling support, with additional contributions from the HDR UK Data and Connectivity component of the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser's National Core Studies programme to coordinate national COVID-19 priority research. Consortium partner organisations funded the time of contributing data analysts, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and clinicians. The associated costs of accessing data in NHS England's secure data environment service for England, for analysts working on this study, were funded by the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics, which is funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref: MC_PC_20058). This research was co-funded by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203308) and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Greater Manchester (NIHR200174). AMW is supported by the BHF Data Science Centre (HDRUK2023.0239) and as an NIHR Research Professor (NIHR303137). This work was supported by core funding from the: British Heart Foundation (RG/18/13/33946), NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; NIHR203312) [*], Cambridge BHF Centre of Research Excellence (RE/18/1/34212), BHF Chair Award (CH/12/2/29428) and by Health Data Research UK, which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation and Wellcome.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The North East - Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 research ethics committee of the Health Reserach Authority gave ethical approval for this work.
I 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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.