ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2025
Comparison of outcomes of the 50-year follow-up of a randomized trial assessed by study questionnaire and by data linkage: The CONCUR study.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twenty-year outcomes after repeat doses of antenatal corticosteroids prior to 32 weeks' gestation: Follow-up of a randomised clinical trial.PLoS medicine · 2025Trial
- Trial
- The Road to Hell Winds On: The High Administrative Burden of Maintaining Linked National Health Data.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Time and cost of linking administrative datasets for outcomes assessment in a follow-up study of participants from two randomised trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsSelf-reported questionnaires on health status after randomized trials can be time-consuming, costly, and potentially unreliable. Administrative data sets may provide cost-effective, less biased information, but it is uncertain how administrative and self-reported data compare to identify chronic conditions in a New Zealand cohort. This study aimed to determine whether record linkage could replace self-reported questionnaires to identify chronic conditions that were the outcomes of interest for trial follow-up.
methodsParticipants in 50-year follow-up of a randomized trial were asked to complete a questionnaire and to consent to accessing administrative data. The proportion of participants with diabetes, pre-diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, mental health disorders, and asthma was calculated using each data source and agreement between data sources assessed.
resultsParticipants were aged 49 years (SD = 1,
conclusionsA combination of questionnaire, pharmaceutical, and laboratory data with expert panel review were required to identify participants with chronic conditions of interest in this follow-up of a clinical trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.