PURPOSE: To identify practices common to both the General Practice Research Database and The Health Improvement Network database for purposes of combining the databases for analysis without duplicate records. METHODS: We developed two independent algorithms to identify practices common to the two databases. The first used the total number of patients in the therapy and clinical data sets and the total number of etoricoxib and celecoxib users each year during the study period. The second used the total number of patients stratified by gender and four different categories of birth year. Further checking of potential matched practice pairs identified by the two algorithms was performed by comparing the patient-level medical records by birth year, dates of clinical visits, and diagnosis codes. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve potential matched pairs of practices were found by both algorithms. Fifteen additional potential pairs were matched by only one algorithm: 13 by algorithm 1 (A1) only and 2 by algorithm 2 (A2) only. The examination of the patient-level visit dates and diagnosis codes for the matches revealed that all of the 327 potential pairs of duplicate practices were in fact the same practice in the two databases. CONCLUSIONS: The two algorithms successfully found the practices common to the two different databases without de-identifying the practices. The identification of the common practices allows for combining the two databases without duplicate records to create a larger data set for analysis, with 168 more practices than when using the General Practice Research Database alone, or with 268 more practices than when using The Health Improvement Network alone.
PURPOSE: To identify practices common to both the General Practice Research Database and The Health Improvement Network database for purposes of combining the databases for analysis without duplicate records. METHODS: We developed two independent algorithms to identify practices common to the two databases. The first used the total number of patients in the therapy and clinical data sets and the total number of etoricoxib and celecoxib users each year during the study period. The second used the total number of patients stratified by gender and four different categories of birth year. Further checking of potential matched practice pairs identified by the two algorithms was performed by comparing the patient-level medical records by birth year, dates of clinical visits, and diagnosis codes. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve potential matched pairs of practices were found by both algorithms. Fifteen additional potential pairs were matched by only one algorithm: 13 by algorithm 1 (A1) only and 2 by algorithm 2 (A2) only. The examination of the patient-level visit dates and diagnosis codes for the matches revealed that all of the 327 potential pairs of duplicate practices were in fact the same practice in the two databases. CONCLUSIONS: The two algorithms successfully found the practices common to the two different databases without de-identifying the practices. The identification of the common practices allows for combining the two databases without duplicate records to create a larger data set for analysis, with 168 more practices than when using the General Practice Research Database alone, or with 268 more practices than when using The Health Improvement Network alone.
Authors: Marietta Rottenkolber; Eef Voogd; Liset van Dijk; Paola Primatesta; Claudia Becker; Raymond Schlienger; Mark C H de Groot; Yolanda Alvarez; Julie Durand; Jim Slattery; Ana Afonso; Gema Requena; Miguel Gil; Arturo Alvarez; Ulrik Hesse; Roman Gerlach; Joerg Hasford; Rainald Fischer; Olaf H Klungel; Sven Schmiedl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: M Elle Saine; Dena M Carbonari; Craig W Newcomb; Melissa S Nezamzadeh; Kevin Haynes; Jason A Roy; Serena Cardillo; Sean Hennessy; Crystal N Holick; Daina B Esposito; Arlene M Gallagher; Harshvinder Bhullar; Brian L Strom; Vincent Lo Re Journal: BMC Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Joan Fortuny; Alicia Gilsenan; Miguel Cainzos-Achirica; Oscar F Cantero; Robert W V Flynn; Luis Garcia-Rodriguez; Bianca Kollhorst; Pär Karlsson; Love Linnér; Thomas M MacDonald; Estel Plana; Ana Ruigómez; Tania Schink; Ryan Ziemiecki; Elizabeth B Andrews Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Macey L Murray; Yingfen Hsia; Karen Glaser; Emily Simonoff; Declan G M Murphy; Philip J Asherson; Hanna Eklund; Ian C K Wong Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2013-05-17 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Macey L Murray; Suppachai Insuk; Tobias Banaschewski; Antje C Neubert; Suzanne McCarthy; Jan K Buitelaar; David Coghill; Ralf W Dittmann; Kerstin Konrad; Pietro Panei; Eric Rosenthal; Edmund J Sonuga-Barke; Ian C K Wong Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Ruth Brauer; Ana Ruigómez; Gerry Downey; Andrew Bate; Luis Alberto Garcia Rodriguez; Consuelo Huerta; Miguel Gil; Francisco de Abajo; Gema Requena; Yolanda Alvarez; Jim Slattery; Mark de Groot; Patrick Souverein; Ulrik Hesse; Marietta Rottenkolber; Sven Schmiedl; Frank de Vries; Maurille Feudjo Tepie; Raymond Schlienger; Liam Smeeth; Ian Douglas; Robert Reynolds; Olaf Klungel Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Sue Smith; Jeremy I Hawker; Gillian E Smith; Roger Morbey; Alan P Johnson; Douglas M Fleming; Laura Shallcross; Andrew C Hayward Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 2.341