Abstract: Background As a national effort to better understand the current pandemic, three cohorts collect sociodemographic and clinical data from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients from different target populations within the German National Pandemic Cohort Network (NAPKON). Furthermore, the German Corona Consensus Dataset (GECCO) was introduced as a harmonized basic information model for COVID-19 patients in clinical routine. To compare the cohort data with other GECCO-based studies, data items are mapped to GECCO. As mapping from one information model to another is complex, an additional consistency evaluation of the mapped items is recommended to detect possible mapping issues or source data inconsistencies. Objectives The goal of this work is to assure high consistency of research data mapped to the GECCO data model. In particular, it aims at identifying contradictions within interdependent GECCO data items of the German national COVID-19 cohorts to allow investigation of possible reasons for identified contradictions. We furthermore aim at enabling other researchers to easily perform data quality evaluation on GECCO-based datasets and adapt to similar data models. Methods All suitable data items from each of the three NAPKON cohorts are mapped to the GECCO items. A consistency assessment tool (dqGecco) is implemented, following the design of an existing quality assessment framework, retaining their-defined consistency taxonomies, including logical and empirical contradictions. Results of the assessment are verified independently on the primary data source. Results Our consistency assessment tool helped in correcting the mapping procedure and reveals remaining contradictory value combinations within COVID-19 symptoms, vital signs, and COVID-19 severity. Consistency rates differ between the different indicators and cohorts ranging from 95.84% up to 100%. Conclusion An efficient and portable tool capable of discovering inconsistencies in the COVID-19 domain has been developed and applied to three different cohorts. As the GECCO dataset is employed in different platforms and studies, the tool can be directly applied there or adapted to similar information models

Abstract: Objectives To evaluate whether a multimodal intervention in general practice reduces the proportion of second line antibiotic prescriptions and the overall proportion of antibiotic prescriptions for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women. Design Parallel, cluster randomised, controlled trial. Setting General practices in five regions in Germany. Data were collected between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2022. Participants General practitioners from 128 randomly assigned practices. Interventions Multimodal intervention consisting of guideline recommendations for general practitioners and patients, provision of regional data for antibiotic resistance, and quarterly feedback, which included individual first line and second line proportions of antibiotic prescribing, benchmarking with regional or supra-regional practices, and telephone counselling. Participants in the control group received no information on the intervention. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed by general practices, in relation to all antibiotics prescribed, for uncomplicated urinary tract infections after one year between the intervention and control group. General practices were randomly assigned in blocks (1:1), with a block size of four, into the intervention or control group using SAS version 9.4; randomisation was stratified by region. The secondary outcome was the prescription proportion of all antibiotics, relative within all cases (instances of UTI diagnosis), for the treatment of urinary tract infections after one year between the groups. Adverse events were assessed as exploratory outcomes. Results 110 practices with full datasets identified 10 323 cases during five quarters (ie, 15 months). The mean proportion of second line antibiotics prescribed was 0.19 (standard deviation 0.20) in the intervention group and 0.35 (0.25) in the control group after 12 months. After adjustment for preintervention proportions, the mean difference was −0.13 (95% confidence interval −0.21 to −0.06, P0.001). The overall proportion of all antibiotic prescriptions for urinary tract infections over 12 months was 0.74 (standard deviation 0.22) in the intervention and 0.80 (0.15) in the control group with a mean difference of −0.08 (95% confidence interval −0.15 to −0.02, P0.029). No differences were noted in the number of complications (ie, pyelonephritis, admission to hospital, or fever) between the groups.