Completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

BACKGROUND: This descriptive study assessed the completeness, agreement, and representativeness of ethnicity recording in the United Kingdom (UK) Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care databases alone and, for those patients registered with a GP in England, when linked to secondary care data from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). METHODS: Ethnicity records were assessed for all patients in the May 2021 builds of the CPRD GOLD and CPRD Aurum databases for all UK patients. In analyses of the UK, English data was from combined CPRD-HES, whereas data from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales drew from CPRD only. The agreement of ethnicity records per patient was assessed within each dataset (CPRD GOLD, CPRD Aurum, and HES datasets) and between datasets at the highest level ethnicity categorisation ('Asian', 'black', 'mixed', 'white', 'other'). Representativeness was assessed by comparing the ethnic distributions at the highest-level categorisation of CPRD-HES to those from the Census 2011 across the UK's devolved administrations. Additionally, CPRD-HES was compared to the experimental ethnic distributions for England and Wales from the Office for National Statistics in 2019 (ONS2019) and the English ethnic distribution from May 2021 from NHS Digital's General Practice Extraction Service Data for Pandemic Planning and Research with HES data linkage (GDPPR-HES). RESULTS: In CPRD-HES, 81.7% of currently registered patients in the UK had ethnicity recorded in primary care. For patients with multiple ethnicity records, mismatched ethnicity within individual primary and secondary care datasets was < 10%. Of English patients with ethnicity recorded in both CPRD and HES, 93.3% of records matched at the highest-level categorisation; however, the level of agreement was markedly lower in the 'mixed' and 'other' ethnic groups. CPRD-HES was less proportionately 'white' compared to the UK Census 2011 (80.3% vs. 87.2%) and experimental ONS2019 data (80.4% vs. 84.3%). CPRD-HES was aligned with the ethnic distribution from GDPPR-HES ('white' 80.4% vs. 80.7%); however, with a smaller proportion classified as 'other' (1.1% vs. 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: CPRD-HES has suitable representation of all ethnic categories with some overrepresentation of minority ethnic groups and a smaller proportion classified as 'other' compared to the UK general population from other data sources. CPRD-HES data is useful for studying health risks and outcomes in typically underrepresented groups.

COVID-19 during pregnancy and risk of pregnancy loss (miscarriage or stillbirth): a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to concerns about potential adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with infection, resulting in intensive research. Numerous studies have attempted to examine whether COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of pregnancy loss. However, studies and reviews to date have drawn differing conclusions. The aim of this systematic review is to provide a summary of all quantitative research on the relationship between pregnancy loss and COVID-19 infection and, if appropriate, to synthesise the evidence into an overall effect estimate. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three publication databases (Embase, PubMed and Cochrane) and four preprint databases (medRxiv, Lancet Preprint, Gates Open Research and Wellcome Open Research) will be searched. Boolean logic will be used to combine terms associated with pregnancy loss and COVID-19. The population of interest are pregnant women. Retrieved results will be assessed in two phases: (1) abstract screening and (2) full text evaluation. All studies which compare pregnancy loss outcomes in women who had COVID-19 versus those who did not quantitatively will be included. Narrative and non-English studies will be excluded. Two reviewers will screen independently, with results compared and discrepancies resolved by the study team. Study quality and risk of bias will be assessed using a quality appraisal tool. Results will be summarised descriptively and where possible synthesised in a meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review requires no ethical approval. This review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and provide an important update in a rapidly evolving field of research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022327437.

Completeness and representativeness of small area socioeconomic data linked with the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) holds primary care electronic healthcare records for 25% of the UK population. CPRD data can be linked via practice postcode in the UK, and additionally via patient postcode in England, to area-level socioeconomic status (SES) data including the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), the Carstairs Index and the Townsend Deprivation Index; as well as rural-urban classification (RUC). This study aims to describe the completeness and representativeness of CPRD-linked SES and RUC data. METHODS: Patients currently registered at general practices contributing data to the May 2021 snapshots of CPRD GOLD (n=445 587) and CPRD Aurum (n=13 278 825) were used to assess the completeness and representativeness of CPRD-linked SES and RUC data against the UK general population. RESULTS: All currently registered patients had complete SES and RUC data at practice level across the UK. Most English patients in CPRD GOLD (78%), CPRD Aurum (94%) and combined (93%) had SES and RUC data at patient level. Patient-level SES data in CPRD for England were comparable to England's general population (average IMD decile in CPRD 5.52±0.00 vs 5.50±0.02). CPRD UK practices were on average in more deprived areas than the UK general population (6.06±0.07 vs 5.50±0.02). A slightly higher proportion of CPRD patients and practices were from urban areas (85%) as compared with the UK general population (82%). CONCLUSION: Completeness of CPRD-linked SES and RUC data is high. The CPRD populations were broadly representative of the general populations in the UK in terms of SES and RUC.