Examining the impact of data quality and completeness of electronic health records on predictions of patients' risks of cardiovascular disease

OBJECTIVE To assess the extent of variation of data quality and completeness of electronic health records and impact on the robustness of risk predictions of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) using a risk prediction tool that is based on routinely collected data (QRISK3). DESIGN Longitudinal cohort study. SETTINGS 392 general practices (including 3.6 million patients) linked to hospital admission data. METHODS Variation in data quality was assessed using Sáez's stability metrics quantifying outlyingness of each practice. Statistical frailty models evaluated whether accuracy of QRISK3 predictions on individual predictions and effects of overall risk factors (linear predictor) varied between practices. RESULTS There was substantial heterogeneity between practices in CVD incidence unaccounted for by QRISK3. In the lowest quintile of statistical frailty, a QRISK3 predicted risk of 10 % for female was in a range between 7.1 % and 9.0 % when incorporating practice variability into the statistical frailty models; for the highest quintile, this was 10.9%-16.4%. Data quality (using Saez metrics) and completeness were comparable across different levels of statistical frailty. For example, recording of missing information on ethnicity was 55.7 %, 62.7 %, 57.8 %, 64.8 % and 62.1 % for practices from lowest to highest quintiles of statistical frailty respectively. The effects of risk factors did not vary between practices with little statistical variation of beta coefficients. CONCLUSIONS The considerable unmeasured heterogeneity in CVD incidence between practices was not explained by variations in data quality or effects of risk factors. QRISK3 risk prediction should be supplemented with clinical judgement and evidence of additional risk factors.

[1]  R D Riley,et al.  Random‐effects meta‐analysis of the clinical utility of tests and prediction models , 2018, Statistics in medicine.

[2]  J. Kai,et al.  Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data? , 2017, PloS one.

[3]  D. Cox Regression Models and Life-Tables , 1972 .

[4]  Changyong FENG,et al.  Correlation and agreement: overview and clarification of competing concepts and measures , 2016, Shanghai archives of psychiatry.

[5]  Asaf Bitton,et al.  The Framingham Heart Study's impact on global risk assessment. , 2010, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[6]  Carlos Sáez,et al.  Applying probabilistic temporal and multisite data quality control methods to a public health mortality registry in Spain: a systematic approach to quality control of repositories , 2016, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[7]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model , 2000 .

[8]  Gregory Y H Lip,et al.  Cardiovascular risk prediction: balancing complexity against simple practicality. , 2015, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[9]  Carlos Sáez,et al.  Stability metrics for multi-source biomedical data based on simplicial projections from probability distribution distances , 2017, Statistical methods in medical research.

[10]  J. Gower Multivariate Analysis and Multidimensional Geometry , 1967 .

[11]  Michael Thomas,et al.  Predicted 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease is influenced by the risk equation adopted: a cross-sectional analysis. , 2014, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  H. Tunstall-Pedoe,et al.  Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. , 2003, European heart journal.

[13]  Nancy R. Cook,et al.  Use and Misuse of the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve in Risk Prediction , 2007, Circulation.

[14]  R. Stevens,et al.  The utility of long-term blood pressure variability for cardiovascular risk prediction in primary care , 2019, Journal of hypertension.

[15]  P. Austin A Tutorial on Multilevel Survival Analysis: Methods, Models and Applications , 2017, International statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique.

[16]  D. Lloyd‐Jones,et al.  Implementing Cardiovascular Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice: The Future Is Now , 2017, Journal of the American Heart Association.

[17]  J. Hippisley-Cox,et al.  Development and validation of QRISK3 risk prediction algorithms to estimate future risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective cohort study , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[18]  Terry M. Therneau,et al.  Mixed Effects Cox Models , 2015 .

[19]  Joseph L Schafer,et al.  Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data , 1997 .

[20]  P. Hougaard,et al.  Frailty models for survival data , 1995, Lifetime data analysis.

[21]  Sachil Shah,et al.  Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease , 2012 .

[22]  Amy Ming-Fang Yen,et al.  Individual risk prediction model for incident cardiovascular disease: a Bayesian clinical reasoning approach. , 2013, International journal of cardiology.

[23]  G. Collins,et al.  Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[24]  Carol Coupland,et al.  The performance of seven QPrediction risk scores in an independent external sample of patients from general practice: a validation study , 2014, BMJ Open.

[25]  Flemming Topsøe,et al.  Jensen-Shannon divergence and Hilbert space embedding , 2004, International Symposium onInformation Theory, 2004. ISIT 2004. Proceedings..

[26]  Ben Goldacre,et al.  Prediction of Cardiovascular Risk Using Framingham, ASSIGN and QRISK2: How Well Do They Predict Individual Rather than Population Risk? , 2014, PloS one.

[27]  Matthew Sperrin,et al.  Do population-level risk prediction models that use routinely collected health data reliably predict individual risks? , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[28]  K. Bhaskaran,et al.  Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) , 2015, International journal of epidemiology.