Of the Importance of Motherhood and Apple Pie: What Big Data Can Learn From Small Data.

Data integrity and validity are challenging topics to get published in medical journals. The clinical implications of these matters are not always intuitive to the reader, and data quality seldom makes headlines in the medical literature, unless something goes wrong, in which case-related conversations can make their way to the court rooms and the lay press.1 Yet, the cornerstone of our ability to make robust inference and sound clinical decisions is the assumption of the validity, accuracy, and representativeness of medical research data. Over the past few years, several articles in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes have reminded us of the importance to formally examine such assumptions. Registries occupy a central role in the clinical research landscape by allowing to pool observational clinical data into larger data sets to enhance statistical power and to draw more robust inference. Registries afford expansive population coverage and contain abundant clinical data that enable valuable risk adjustment. Most importantly, registries are intended to reflect real-world practice. However, as participation is voluntary, the representativeness of patients in registries cannot be assumed as institutions that participate may differ from those that elect not to.2 Furthermore, the completeness of the data must be verified as illustrated by a study of the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) National Quality Improvement Initiative pertaining to patients with non–ST-segment–elevation acute coronary syndromes, where it was identified that records often lacked key clinical elements of the history and physical examination.3 Hence, the quality control of registries is critical to their value for outcomes research and clinical care. Regular audits of registries to assess their quality are thus essential to their use. In Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes , Ferreira et al4 reported on an …

[1]  M. Reeves,et al.  Assessment of the Completeness and Accuracy of Case Ascertainment in the Michigan Stroke Registry , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[2]  Andy Podgurski,et al.  The Use and Misuse of Biomedical Data: Is Bigger Really Better? , 2013, American Journal of Law & Medicine.

[3]  B. Kissela,et al.  Validity of Claims-Based Stroke Algorithms in Contemporary Medicare Data: Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study Linked With Medicare Claims , 2014, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[4]  J. Messenger,et al.  The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Data Quality Brief: the NCDR Data Quality Program in 2012. , 2012, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[5]  Lucy Savitz,et al.  Challenges in Using Electronic Health Record Data for CER: Experience of 4 Learning Organizations and Solutions Applied , 2013, Medical care.

[6]  M. Makary,et al.  Prevalence and Data Transparency of National Clinical Registries in the United States , 2016, Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality.

[7]  B. Hammill,et al.  Data sources for heart failure comparative effectiveness research. , 2013, Heart failure clinics.

[8]  Jason Wang,et al.  Validity of electronic health record-derived quality measurement for performance monitoring , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[9]  N. Limdi,et al.  Validity of International Classification of Disease Codes to Identify Ischemic Stroke and Intracranial Hemorrhage Among Individuals With Associated Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation , 2015, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[10]  H. Bueno,et al.  Patient Registries of Acute Coronary Syndrome: Assessing or Biasing the Clinical Real World Data? , 2009, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[11]  Alison Rein,et al.  Considerations for Community-Based mHealth Initiatives: Insights From Three Beacon Communities , 2013, Journal of medical Internet research.

[12]  K. Alexander,et al.  Medical records and quality of care in acute coronary syndromes: results from CRUSADE. , 2008, Archives of internal medicine.

[13]  Mary G. George,et al.  The Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry (PCNASR): a public health initiative. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[14]  Y. Tu Linear mixed model approach to network meta-analysis for continuous outcomes in periodontal research. , 2015, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[15]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Transforming Epidemiology for 21st Century Medicine and Public Health , 2013, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[16]  G. Mensah,et al.  The Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry: initial results from four prototypes. , 2006, American journal of preventive medicine.

[17]  Eric Boerwinkle,et al.  Strategic transformation of population studies: recommendations of the working group on epidemiology and population sciences from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council and Board of External Experts. , 2015, American journal of epidemiology.

[18]  Bonnie K. Lind,et al.  Challenges of Using Medical Insurance Claims Data for Utilization Analysis , 2006, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.

[19]  Kitty S. Chan,et al.  Review: Electronic Health Records and the Reliability and Validity of Quality Measures: A Review of the Literature , 2010, Medical care research and review : MCRR.