English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aim: The impact of different strategies to handle patients with data recorded under multiple Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) identifiers (IDs) is unknown. Patients and methods: Six approaches to handling patients appearing under multiple CPRD IDs were defined. The impact of the approaches was illustrated using a case study describing the clinical characteristics of a population of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. Results: 5.6% of patients had more than one CPRD ID. Across all six approaches implemented, no material difference in the characteristics of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients were observed. Conclusion: While strategies which longitudinally append patient registration periods under different CPRD IDs maintain independence while using all available data, their implementation had little impact on the results of our case study.

Nonindependence of patient data in the clinical practice research datalink: a case study in atrial fibrillation patients