Supplementary data: Availability of secondary healthcare data for conducting pharmacoepidemiology studies in Mexico: a systematic review

These are peer-reviewed supplementary materials for the article 'Availability of secondary healthcare data for conducting pharmacoepidemiology studies in Mexico: a systematic review' published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness ResearchSupplementary Table 1: Summary of results: named databasesSupplementary Table 2: Summary of results: hospitals and institutions reporting unnamed databases or electronic medical recordsSupplementary table 3: Therapeutic areas of databasesSupplementary table 4: Description of global and regional data sourcesSupplementary table 5: Description of local disease and drug registriesAim: To investigate the data sources available in Mexico for real-world research. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review on PubMed, EMBASE and VHL using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords for the concepts of electronic health records, epidemiologic studies and Mexico was performed. Results: A total of 331 articles and 89 conference abstracts reporting real-world studies were identified. These included 320 data sources: 142 unique named databases, 172 unnamed databases from specified providers, and 26 electronic medical record datasets. The main data sources came from healthcare institutions (35%), followed by government agencies (26%). The most frequent database design corresponded to surveys (34%) and disease registries (20%). Most databases included cohort studies (43%), population-based (25%) and cross-sectional studies (18%). Specific diagnostic tests (28%), access (22%) and pharmacological treatment (21%) were the most common issues analyzed in databases at patient-level data. Neoplasms, cardiac disorders and infections/infestations were the most common therapeutic areas analyzed in databases. Conclusion: In Mexico, the use of databases has increased, driven by governmental and nongovernmental organisations and companies. However, further efforts are still needed to improve the quality and knowledge of real-world evidence.