Rotational thromboelastometry as a biomarker for mortality - The Maastricht Intensive Care COVID cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) present with persisting hypercoagulability, hypofibrinolysis and prolonged clot initiation as measured with viscoelastic assays. The objective of this study was to investigate the trajectories of traditional assays of hemostasis, routine and tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) in COVID-19 patients and to study their association with mortality. METHODS: Patients enrolled within the Maastricht Intensive Care COVID (MaastrICCht) cohort were included. Traditional assays of hemostasis (prothrombin time; PT, fibrinogen and D-dimer) were measured daily and ROTEM EXTEM, FIBTEM and tPA assays were performed weekly. Trajectories of these biomarkers were analyzed over time for survivors and non-survivors using linear mixed-effects models. Additional Fine and Gray competing risk survival analysis was performed for the first available measurement after intubation. RESULTS: Of the 138 included patients, 57 (41 %) died in the intensive care unit (ICU). Over 450, 400 and 1900 individual measurements were available for analysis of routine, tPA ROTEM and traditional assays of hemostasis, respectively, with a median [IQR] follow-up of 15 [8-24] days. Non-survivors on average had prolonged CT (clotting time) and increased fibrinogen compared to survivors. MCF (maximum clot firmness), LOT (lysis onset time), LT (lysis time) and PT measurements increased more over time in non-survivors compared to survivors. Associations persisted after adjustment for demographics and disease severity. EXTEM and FIBTEM CT at intubation were associated with increased 45-day ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: ROTEM measurements demonstrate a further increase of hypercoagulability and (hypo)fibrinolysis parameters in non-survivors throughout ICU admission. Furthermore, prolonged CT at intubation was associated with higher 45-day ICU mortality.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in patients on kidney replacement therapy: observational study using the OpenSAFELY-UKRR and SRR databases.

Background: Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK. Methods: With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR). Results: Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 1852) or molnupiravir (n = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.71]; P = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13-1.21); P = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P > .05). Conclusions: In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves.

Comparative effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir for preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk patients during Omicron waves: observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: Timely evidence of the comparative effectiveness between COVID-19 therapies in real-world settings is needed to inform clinical care. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir versus sotrovimab and molnupiravir in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes in non-hospitalised high-risk COVID-19 adult patients during Omicron waves. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a real-world cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Patient-level primary care data were obtained from 24 million people in England and were securely linked with data on COVID-19 infection and therapeutics, hospital admission, and death, covering a period where both nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab were first-line treatment options in community settings (February 10, 2022-November 27, 2022). Molnupiravir (third-line option) was used as an exploratory comparator to nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, both of which were antivirals. Cox proportional hazards model stratified by area was used to compare the risk of 28-day COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death across treatment groups. Findings: A total of 9026 eligible patients treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 5704) and sotrovimab (n = 3322) were included in the main analysis. The mean age was 52.7 (SD = 14.9) years and 93% (8436/9026) had three or more COVID-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days after treatment initiation, 55/9026 (0.61%) COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were observed (34/5704 [0.60%] treated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and 21/3322 [0.63%] with sotrovimab). After adjusting for demographics, high-risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index and other comorbidities, we observed no significant difference in outcome risk between nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab users (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.48-1.63; P = 0.698). Results from propensity score weighted model also showed non-significant difference between treatment groups (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.45-1.52; P = 0.535). The exploratory analysis comparing nirmatrelvir/ritonavir users with 1041 molnupiravir users (13/1041 [1.25%] COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths) showed an association in favour of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (HR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.94; P = 0.033). Interpretation: In routine care of non-hospitalised high-risk adult patients with COVID-19 in England, no substantial difference in the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes was observed between those who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir and sotrovimab between February and November 2022, when Omicron subvariants BA.2, BA.5, or BQ.1 were dominant. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Changes in COVID-19-related mortality across key demographic and clinical subgroups in England from 2020 to 2022: a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been shown to differently affect various demographic and clinical population subgroups. We aimed to describe trends in absolute and relative COVID-19-related mortality risks across clinical and demographic population subgroups during successive SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study in England using the OpenSAFELY platform with the approval of National Health Service England, covering the first five SARS-CoV-2 pandemic waves (wave one [wild-type] from March 23 to May 30, 2020; wave two [alpha (B.1.1.7)] from Sept 7, 2020, to April 24, 2021; wave three [delta (B.1.617.2)] from May 28 to Dec 14, 2021; wave four [omicron (B.1.1.529)] from Dec 15, 2021, to April 29, 2022; and wave five [omicron] from June 24 to Aug 3, 2022). In each wave, we included people aged 18-110 years who were registered with a general practice on the first day of the wave and who had at least 3 months of continuous general practice registration up to this date. We estimated crude and sex-standardised and age-standardised wave-specific COVID-19-related death rates and relative risks of COVID-19-related death in population subgroups. FINDINGS: 18 895 870 adults were included in wave one, 19 014 720 in wave two, 18 932 050 in wave three, 19 097 970 in wave four, and 19 226 475 in wave five. Crude COVID-19-related death rates per 1000 person-years decreased from 4·48 deaths (95% CI 4·41-4·55) in wave one to 2·69 (2·66-2·72) in wave two, 0·64 (0·63-0·66) in wave three, 1·01 (0·99-1·03) in wave four, and 0·67 (0·64-0·71) in wave five. In wave one, the standardised COVID-19-related death rates were highest in people aged 80 years or older, people with chronic kidney disease stage 5 or 4, people receiving dialysis, people with dementia or learning disability, and people who had received a kidney transplant (ranging from 19·85 deaths per 1000 person-years to 44·41 deaths per 1000 person-years, compared with from 0·05 deaths per 1000 person-years to 15·93 deaths per 1000 person-years in other subgroups). In wave two compared with wave one, in a largely unvaccinated population, the decrease in COVID-19-related mortality was evenly distributed across population subgroups. In wave three compared with wave one, larger decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were seen in groups prioritised for primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, including people aged 80 years or older and people with neurological disease, learning disability, or severe mental illness (90-91% decrease). Conversely, smaller decreases in COVID-19-related death rates were observed in younger age groups, people who had received organ transplants, and people with chronic kidney disease, haematological malignancies, or immunosuppressive conditions (0-25% decrease). In wave four compared with wave one, the decrease in COVID-19-related death rates was smaller in groups with lower vaccination coverage (including younger age groups) and conditions associated with impaired vaccine response, including people who had received organ transplants and people with immunosuppressive conditions (26-61% decrease). INTERPRETATION: There was a substantial decrease in absolute COVID-19-related death rates over time in the overall population, but demographic and clinical relative risk profiles persisted and worsened for people with lower vaccination coverage or impaired immune response. Our findings provide an evidence base to inform UK public health policy for protecting these vulnerable population subgroups. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Wellcome Trust, UK Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Health Data Research UK.

Trends, variation, and clinical characteristics of recipients of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 in community settings: retrospective, descriptive cohort study of 23.4 million people in OpenSAFELY.

Objective: To ascertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antiviral drugs and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for covid-19 in community settings in England. Design: Retrospective, descriptive cohort study, approved by NHS England. Setting: Routine clinical data from 23.4 million people linked to data on covid-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database. Participants: Outpatients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes. Interventions: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab/imdevimab, or remdesivir, used in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. Results: 93 870 outpatients with covid-19 were identified between 11 December 2021 and 28 April 2022 to be at high risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral or nMAB treatment (or both). Of these patients, 19 040 (20%) received treatment (sotrovimab, 9660 (51%); molnupiravir, 4620 (24%); paxlovid, 4680 (25%); casirivimab/imdevimab, 50 (<1%); and remdesivir, 30 (<1%)). The proportion of patients treated increased from 9% (190/2220) in the first week of treatment availability to 29% (460/1600) in the latest week. The proportion treated varied by high risk group, being lowest in those with liver disease (16%; 95% confidence interval 15% to 17%); by treatment type, with sotrovimab favoured over molnupiravir and paxlovid in all but three high risk groups (Down's syndrome (35%; 30% to 39%), rare neurological conditions (45%; 43% to 47%), and immune deficiencies (48%; 47% to 50%)); by age, ranging from ≥80 years (13%; 12% to 14%) to 50-59 years (23%; 22% to 23%); by ethnic group, ranging from black (11%; 10% to 12%) to white (21%; 21% to 21%); by NHS region, ranging from 13% (12% to 14%) in Yorkshire and the Humber to 25% (24% to 25%) in the East of England); and by deprivation level, ranging from 15% (14% to 15%) in the most deprived areas to 23% (23% to 24%) in the least deprived areas. Groups that also had lower coverage included unvaccinated patients (7%; 6% to 9%), those with dementia (6%; 5% to 7%), and care home residents (6%; 6% to 7%). Conclusions: Using the OpenSAFELY platform, we were able to identify patients with covid-19 at high risk of severe outcomes who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments among these patients. In the context of a rapid deployment of a new service, the NHS analytical code used to determine eligibility could have been over-inclusive and some of the eligibility criteria not fully captured in healthcare data. However targeted activity might be needed to resolve apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, ethnic groups, people aged ≥80 years, those living in socioeconomically deprived areas, and care home residents.

Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with kidney disease: an OpenSAFELY cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992 205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.

Comparative effectiveness of sotrovimab and molnupiravir for prevention of severe covid-19 outcomes in patients in the community: observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of sotrovimab (a neutralising monoclonal antibody) with molnupiravir (an antiviral) in preventing severe outcomes of covid-19 in adult patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the community and at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19. DESIGN: Observational cohort study with the OpenSAFELY platform. SETTING: With the approval of NHS England, a real world cohort study was conducted with the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform (a secure, transparent, open source software platform for analysis of NHS electronic health records), and patient level electronic health record data were obtained from 24 million people registered with a general practice in England that uses TPP software. The primary care data were securely linked with data on SARS-CoV-2 infection and treatments, hospital admission, and death, over a period when both drug treatments were frequently prescribed in community settings. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with covid-19 in the community at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, treated with sotrovimab or molnupiravir from 16 December 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Sotrovimab or molnupiravir given in the community by covid-19 medicine delivery units. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Admission to hospital with covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the primary diagnosis) or death from covid-19 (ie, with covid-19 as the underlying or contributing cause of death) within 28 days of the start of treatment. RESULTS: Between 16 December 2021 and 10 February 2022, 3331 and 2689 patients were treated with sotrovimab and molnupiravir, respectively, with no substantial differences in baseline characteristics. Mean age of all 6020 patients was 52 (standard deviation 16) years; 59% were women, 89% were white, and 88% had received three or more covid-19 vaccinations. Within 28 days of the start of treatment, 87 (1.4%) patients were admitted to hospital or died of infection from SARS-CoV-2 (32 treated with sotrovimab and 55 with molnupiravir). Cox proportional hazards models stratified by area showed that after adjusting for demographic information, high risk cohort categories, vaccination status, calendar time, body mass index, and other comorbidities, treatment with sotrovimab was associated with a substantially lower risk than treatment with molnupiravir (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.88, P=0.01). Consistent results were found from propensity score weighted Cox models (0.50, 0.31 to 0.81, P=0.005) and when restricted to people who were fully vaccinated (0.53, 0.31 to 0.90, P=0.02). No substantial effect modifications by other characteristics were detected (all P values for interaction >0.10). The findings were similar in an exploratory analysis of patients treated between 16 February and 1 May 2022 when omicron BA.2 was the predominant variant in England. CONCLUSIONS: In routine care of adult patients in England with covid-19 in the community, at high risk of severe outcomes from covid-19, those who received sotrovimab were at lower risk of severe outcomes of covid-19 than those treated with molnupiravir.

Estimating incidence of venous thromboembolism in COVID-19: Methodological considerations.

Background: Coagulation abnormalities and coagulopathy are recognized as consequences of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Specifically, venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been reported as a frequent complication. By May 27, 2021, at least 93 original studies and 25 meta-analyses investigating VTE incidence in patients with COVID-19 had been published, showing large heterogeneity in reported VTE incidence ranging from 0% to 85%. This large variation complicates interpretation of individual study results as well as comparisons across studies, for example, to investigate changes in incidence over time, compare subgroups, and perform meta-analyses. Objectives: This study sets out to provide an overview of sources of heterogeneity in VTE incidence studies in patients with COVID-19, illustrated using examples. Methods: The original studies of three meta-analyses were screened and a list of sources of heterogeneity that may explain observed heterogeneity across studies was composed. Results: The sources of heterogeneity in VTE incidence were classified as clinical sources and methodologic sources. Clinical sources of heterogeneity include differences between studies regarding patient characteristics that affect baseline VTE risk and protocols used for VTE testing. Methodologic sources of heterogeneity include differences in VTE inclusion types, data quality, and the methods used for data analysis. Conclusions: To appreciate reported estimates of VTE incidence in patients with COVID-19 in relation to its etiology, prevention, and treatment, researchers should unambiguously report about possible clinical and methodological sources of heterogeneity in those estimates. This article provides suggestions for that.

Mecor: An R package for measurement error correction in linear regression models with a continuous outcome.

Measurement error in a covariate or the outcome of regression models is common, but is often ignored, even though measurement error can lead to substantial bias in the estimated covariate-outcome association. While several texts on measurement error correction methods are available, these methods remain seldomly applied. To improve the use of measurement error correction methodology, we developed mecor, an R package that implements measurement error correction methods for regression models with a continuous outcome. Measurement error correction requires information about the measurement error model and its parameters. This information can be obtained from four types of studies, used to estimate the parameters of the measurement error model: an internal validation study, a replicates study, a calibration study and an external validation study. In the package mecor, regression calibration methods and a maximum likelihood method are implemented to correct for measurement error in a continuous covariate in regression analyses. Additionally, methods of moments methods are implemented to correct for measurement error in the continuous outcome in regression analyses. Variance estimation of the corrected estimators is provided in closed form and using the bootstrap.

Sampling Strategies for Internal Validation Samples for Exposure Measurement-Error Correction: A Study of Visceral Adipose Tissue Measures Replaced by Waist Circumference Measures.

Statistical correction for measurement error in epidemiologic studies is possible, provided that information about the measurement error model and its parameters are available. Such information is commonly obtained from a randomly sampled internal validation sample. It is however unknown whether randomly sampling the internal validation sample is the optimal sampling strategy. We conducted a simulation study to investigate various internal validation sampling strategies in conjunction with regression calibration. Our simulation study showed that for an internal validation study sample of 40% of the main study's sample size, stratified random and extremes sampling had a small efficiency gain over random sampling (10% and 12% decrease on average over all scenarios, respectively). The efficiency gain was more pronounced in smaller validation samples of 10% of the main study's sample size (i.e., a 31% and 36% decrease on average over all scenarios, for stratified random and extremes sampling, respectively). To mitigate the bias due to measurement error in epidemiologic studies, small efficiency gains can be achieved for internal validation sampling strategies other than random, but only when measurement error is nondifferential. For regression calibration, the gain in efficiency is, however, at the cost of a higher percentage bias and lower coverage.

Sensitivity analysis for random measurement error using regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation.

Objective: Sensitivity analysis for random measurement error can be applied in the absence of validation data by means of regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation. These have not been compared for this purpose. Study design and setting: A simulation study was conducted comparing the performance of regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation for linear and logistic regression. The performance of the two methods was evaluated in terms of bias, mean squared error (MSE) and confidence interval coverage, for various values of reliability of the error-prone measurement (0.05-0.91), sample size (125-4000), number of replicates (2-10), and R-squared (0.03-0.75). It was assumed that no validation data were available about the error-free measures, while correct information about the measurement error variance was available. Results: Regression calibration was unbiased while simulation-extrapolation was biased: median bias was 0.8% (interquartile range (IQR): -0.6;1.7%), and -19.0% (IQR: -46.4;-12.4%), respectively. A small gain in efficiency was observed for simulation-extrapolation (median MSE: 0.005, IQR: 0.004;0.006) versus regression calibration (median MSE: 0.006, IQR: 0.005;0.009). Confidence interval coverage was at the nominal level of 95% for regression calibration, and smaller than 95% for simulation-extrapolation (median coverage: 85%, IQR: 73;93%). The application of regression calibration and simulation-extrapolation for a sensitivity analysis was illustrated using an example of blood pressure and kidney function. Conclusion: Our results support the use of regression calibration over simulation-extrapolation for sensitivity analysis for random measurement error.

Approaches to addressing missing values, measurement error, and confounding in epidemiologic studies.

OBJECTIVES: Epidemiologic studies often suffer from incomplete data, measurement error (or misclassification), and confounding. Each of these can cause bias and imprecision in estimates of exposure-outcome relations. We describe and compare statistical approaches that aim to control all three sources of bias simultaneously. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We illustrate four statistical approaches that address all three sources of bias, namely, multiple imputation for missing data and measurement error, multiple imputation combined with regression calibration, full information maximum likelihood within a structural equation modeling framework, and a Bayesian model. In a simulation study, we assess the performance of the four approaches compared with more commonly used approaches that do not account for measurement error, missing values, or confounding. RESULTS: The results demonstrate that the four approaches consistently outperform the alternative approaches on all performance metrics (bias, mean squared error, and confidence interval coverage). Even in simulated data of 100 subjects, these approaches perform well. CONCLUSION: There can be a large benefit of addressing measurement error, missing values, and confounding to improve the estimation of exposure-outcome relations, even when the available sample size is relatively small.

Quantitative Bias Analysis for a Misclassified Confounder: A Comparison Between Marginal Structural Models and Conditional Models for Point Treatments.

Observational data are increasingly used with the aim of estimating causal effects of treatments, through careful control for confounding. Marginal structural models estimated using inverse probability weighting (MSMs-IPW), like other methods to control for confounding, assume that confounding variables are measured without error. The average treatment effect in an MSM-IPW may however be biased when a confounding variable is error prone. Using the potential outcome framework, we derive expressions for the bias due to confounder misclassification in analyses that aim to estimate the average treatment effect using an marginal structural model estimated using inverse probability weighting (MSM-IPW). We compare this bias with the bias due to confounder misclassification in analyses based on a conditional regression model. Focus is on a point-treatment study with a continuous outcome. Compared with bias in the average treatment effect in a conditional model, the bias in an MSM-IPW can be different in magnitude but is equal in sign. Also, we use a simulation study to investigate the finite sample performance of MSM-IPW and conditional models when a confounding variable is misclassified. Simulation results indicate that confidence intervals of the treatment effect obtained from MSM-IPW are generally wider, and coverage of the true treatment effect is higher compared with a conditional model, ranging from overcoverage if there is no confounder misclassification to undercoverage when there is confounder misclassification. Further, we illustrate in a study of blood pressure-lowering therapy, how the bias expressions can be used to inform a quantitative bias analysis to study the impact of confounder misclassification, supported by an online tool.

[Big, bigger, biggest; big data in medical research]. / Groot, groter, grootst.

Big data is characterised not only by the size of data files, but also by the diversity of data sources and continuity in data collection. Technological developments make it possible to store and analyse ever larger and more complex data files. Unlike more conventional research data, big data are often collected without explicit research questions in mind, and analytical techniques are used to find patterns in the data or to generate hypotheses. Examples of big data in medical research are the large data files of routinely collected data on care, sometimes enhanced by information from other sources such as mobile telephones. Using big data in research can be a good way to generate hypotheses or to answer specific research questions, but the use of big data should not be an end in itself.