BACKGROUND Screening data is informative for providing numbers of patients available. A newer method for identifying the available population is using the electronic health record (EHR) to improve recruitment. We conducted an independent validation of MISTIE III trial screening activity to test whether available populations are missed by in-person screening compared to EHR screening.

METHODS The MISTIE III trial screened patients from Dec. 30, 2013 to Aug. 15, 2017. We surveyed active sites for EHR-reported ICH patients, based on specific ICD 9/10 codes in years 2015 and 2016. Fifty-four sites responded to both surveys, 12 European and 42 North American. We compared actual screen numbers captured in the MISTIE III electronic data capture system (EDC) to EHR results. 

RESULTS There is a statistically significant difference in the ICH reported using EHR (mean=327, 95% CI 257-398) and the EDC (mean=155, 95% CI 129-181) screening sources, p<0.001. The change in percent increase in EHR-reported ICH vs. EDC, for both years, was 52.6%. In Europe, the average EHR reported was 224 (95% CI 141-307) and EDC was 101 (95% CI 56-147), p=0.002. Similarly, the North American average EHR reported was 357 (95% CI 270-443) and EDC was 170 (95% CI 140-200), p<0.001. 
CONCLUSION Using an EHR screening strategy can increase the available population yield and possibly the rate of enrollment, thereby improving trial performance overall.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SCREENING IN INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE TRIALS MAY IMPROVE OVERALL RECRUITMENT YIELD