Agreement between public register and adjudication committee outcome in a cardiovascular randomized clinical trial

作者：Kjoller Erik^*; Hilden Jorgen; Winkel Per; Galatius Soren; Frandsen Niels Jorgen; Jensen Gorm B; Hansen Jorgen Fischer; Kastrup Jens; Jespersen Christian M; Hildebrandt Per; Kolmos Hans Jorn; Gluud Christian

来源：American Heart Journal, 2014, 168(2): 197-+.

DOI：10.1016/j.ahj.2013.12.032

Background The objective of this study is to describe the agreement between randomized trial outcome assessment by committee and outcomes entirely identified through public registers.
Methods In the CLARICOR trial, 4,372 patients with stable coronary heart disease received a short course of clarithromycin versus placebo and were followed up for 2.6 years. The pertinent hospital records and death certificates had originally been evaluated by the adjudication committee using common definitions of outcomes mapped into a 6-category list. We now mechanically converted the International Classification of Diseases-coded diagnoses of the public registries into the same categories. After cross-tabulation of the committee diagnoses with National Patient Register diagnoses and Register of Causes of Death, we calculate agreement and compare the estimated intervention effects of the 2 data sets.
Results With public register data, the protocol-specified categories were slightly more frequent. Overall agreement was 74% for hospital discharges and 60% for cause of death, but the intervention effect, expressed as a hazard ratio, stayed within 4% of the value originally obtained with the adjudication committee (P >= .35).
Conclusions Our results show a modest agreement between formal adjudication and outcomes deducible from public registers. However, the estimated intervention effect did not differ noticeably between the 2 data sources. If studies on a wide range of public registers confirm these findings, register outcomes may be considered as a replacement for adjudication committees.

• 出版日期2014-8