Evidence Hub

Data quality and patient characteristics in European ANCA-associated vasculitis registries: data retrieval by federated querying

Gisslander K, Rutherford M, Aslett L, Basu N, Dradin F, Hederman L, Hruskova Z, Kardaoui H et al.

Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2024

7 citations

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to describe the data structure and harmonisation process, explore data quality and define characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients across six federated antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV) registries.

Methods: Through creation of the vasculitis-specific Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable, VASCulitis ontology, we harmonised the registries and enabled semantic interoperability. We assessed data quality across the domains of uniqueness, consistency, completeness and correctness. Aggregated data were retrieved using the semantic query language SPARQL Protocol and Resource Description Framework Query Language (SPARQL) and outcome rates were assessed through random effects meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 5282 cases of AAV were identified. Uniqueness and data-type consistency were 100% across all assessed variables. Completeness and correctness varied from 49%-100% to 60%-100%, respectively. There were 2754 (52.1%) cases classified as granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), 1580 (29.9%) as microscopic polyangiitis and 937 (17.7%) as eosinophilic GPA. The pattern of organ involvement included: lung in 3281 (65.1%), ear-nose-throat in 2860 (56.7%) and kidney in 2534 (50.2%). Intravenous cyclophosphamide was used as remission induction therapy in 982 (50.7%), rituximab in 505 (17.7%) and pulsed intravenous glucocorticoid use was highly variable (11%-91%). Overall mortality and incidence rates of end-stage…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free