Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Centre of Methods and Policy Application in Social Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 7;19(8):e0308414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0308414. eCollection 2024.
A combination of self-reported questionnaire and administrative data could potentially enhance ascertainment of outcomes and alleviate the limitations of both in follow up studies. However, it is uncertain how access to only one of these data sources to assess outcomes impact study findings. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether the study findings would be altered if the outcomes were assessed by different data sources alone or in combination.
At 50-year follow-up of participants in a randomized trial, we assessed the effect of antenatal betamethasone exposure on the diagnosis of diabetes, pre-diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, mental health disorders, and asthma using a self-reported questionnaire, administrative data, a combination of both, or any data source, with or without adjudication by an expert panel of five clinicians. Differences between relative risks derived from each data source were calculated using the Bland-Altman approach.
There were 424 participants (46% of those eligible, aged 49 years, SD 1, 50% male). There were no differences in study outcomes between participants exposed to betamethasone and those exposed to placebo when the outcomes were assessed using different data sources. When compared to the study findings determined using adjudicated outcomes, the mean difference (limits of agreement) in relative risks derived from other data sources were: self-reported questionnaires 0.02 (-0.35 to 0.40), administrative data 0.06 (-0.32 to 0.44), both questionnaire and administrative data 0.01 (-0.41 to 0.43), and any data source, 0.01 (-0.08 to 0.10).
Utilizing a self-reported questionnaire, administrative data, both questionnaire and administrative data, or any of these sources for assessing study outcomes had no impact on the study findings compared with when study outcomes were assessed using adjudicated outcomes.
结合自我报告问卷和行政数据可能会提高结果的确定,并缓解随访研究中两者的局限性。然而,尚不确定仅使用其中一种数据源来评估结果会如何影响研究结果。因此,本研究旨在确定如果仅使用不同的数据源或组合来评估结果,研究结果是否会发生变化。
在一项随机试验参与者的 50 年随访中,我们使用自我报告问卷、行政数据、两者的组合或任何数据源(有或没有由五名临床医生组成的专家小组进行裁决)来评估产前倍他米松暴露对糖尿病、糖尿病前期、血脂异常、高血压、心理健康障碍和哮喘的诊断效果。使用 Bland-Altman 方法计算来自每个数据源的相对风险之间的差异。
共有 424 名参与者(合格人数的 46%,年龄 49 岁,标准差 1,50%为男性)。当使用不同的数据来源评估结果时,暴露于倍他米松的参与者和暴露于安慰剂的参与者在研究结果上没有差异。与使用裁决结果确定的研究发现相比,其他数据来源得出的相对风险的平均差异(置信区间)为:自我报告问卷 0.02(-0.35 至 0.40)、行政数据 0.06(-0.32 至 0.44)、问卷和行政数据两者 0.01(-0.41 至 0.43)以及任何数据源 0.01(-0.08 至 0.10)。
与使用裁决结果评估研究结果相比,使用自我报告问卷、行政数据、问卷和行政数据两者、或这些来源中的任何一种来评估研究结果对研究结果没有影响。