4.3 Review

Availability of secondary healthcare data for conducting pharmacoepidemiology studies in Colombia: A systematic review

期刊

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.661

关键词

Colombia; drug utilization; electronic health records; pharmacoepidemiology

资金

  1. Bayer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Real-world evidence (RWE) is emerging as a fundamental component of the post-marketing evaluation of medicinal products. Even though the focus on RWE studies has increased in Colombia, the availability of secondary data sources to perform this type of research is not well documented. Thus, we aimed at identifying and characterizing secondary data sources available in Colombia. We performed a systematic literature review on PubMed, EMBASE, and VHL using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords for the concepts of electronic health records, epidemiologic studies and Colombia. A total of 323 publications were included. These comprised 123 identified secondary data sources including pharmacy dispensing databases, government datasets, disease registries, insurance databases, and electronic heath records, among others. These data sources were mostly used for cross-sectional studies focused on disease epidemiology in a specific population. Almost all databases (95%) contained demographic information, followed by pharmacological treatment (44%) and diagnostic tests (39%). Even though the database owner was identifiable in 94%, access information was only available in 44% of the articles. Only a pharmacy-dispensing database, local cancer registries, and government databases included a description regarding the quality of the information available. The diversity of databases identified shows that Colombia has a high potential to continue enhancing its RWE strategy. Greater efforts are required to improve data quality and accessibility. The linkage between databases will expand data pooling and integration to boost the translational potential of RWE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据