Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The range of methods used to validate diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) are investigated, to summarize findings and to assess the quality of these validations.Abstract:
AIMS To investigate the range of methods used to validate diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), to summarize findings and to assess the quality of these validations. METHODS A systematic literature review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase for publications using GPRD data published between 1987 and April 2008. Additional publications were identified from conference proceedings, back issues of relevant journals, bibliographies of retrieved publications and relevant websites. Publications that reported attempts to validate disease diagnoses recorded in the GPRD were included. RESULTS We identified 212 publications, often validating more than one diagnosis. In total, 357 validations investigating 183 different diagnoses met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 303 (85%) utilized data from outside the GPRD to validate diagnoses. The remainder utilized only data recorded in the database. The median proportion of cases with a confirmed diagnosis was 89% (range 24-100%). Details of validation methods and results were often incomplete. CONCLUSIONS A number of methods have been used to assess validity. Overall, estimates of validity were high. However, the quality of reporting of the validations was often inadequate to permit a clear interpretation. Not all methods provided a quantitative estimate of validity and most methods considered only the positive predictive value of a set of diagnostic codes in a highly selected group of cases. We make recommendations for methodology and reporting to strengthen further the use of the GPRD in research.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
[The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement].
Eric I Benchimol,Liam Smeeth,Astrid Guttmann,Katie Harron,David Moher,Irene Petersen,Henrik Toft Sørensen,Erik von Elm,Sinead Langan +8 more
TL;DR: This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of theRECORD checklist, and examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein.
Journal ArticleDOI
Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)
Emily Herrett,Arlene M. Gallagher,Krishnan Bhaskaran,Harriet Forbes,Rohini Mathur,Tjeerd van Staa,Liam Smeeth +6 more
TL;DR: The CPRD primary care database is a rich source of health data for research, including data on demographics, symptoms, tests, diagnoses, therapies, health-related behaviours and referrals to secondary care, but researchers must be aware of the complexity of routinely collected electronic health records.
Journal ArticleDOI
Body-mass index and risk of 22 specific cancers: a population-based cohort study of 5·24 million UK adults.
Krishnan Bhaskaran,Ian J. Douglas,Harriet Forbes,Isabel dos-Santos-Silva,David A. Leon,Liam Smeeth +5 more
TL;DR: BMI is associated with cancer risk, with substantial population-level effects, and the heterogeneity in the effects suggests that different mechanisms are associated with different cancer sites and different patient subgroups.
Journal ArticleDOI
Type 2 diabetes and incidence of cardiovascular diseases: a cohort study in 1·9 million people
Anoop D. Shah,Claudia Langenberg,Claudia Langenberg,Eleni Rapsomaniki,Spiros Denaxas,Mar Pujades-Rodriguez,Chris Gale,John E. Deanfield,Liam Smeeth,Adam Timmis,Harry Hemingway +10 more
TL;DR: Heart failure and peripheral arterial disease are the most common initial manifestations of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes, and the differences between relative risks of different cardiovascular diseases in patients withtype 2 diabetes have implications for clinical risk assessment and trial design.
Journal ArticleDOI
Can machine-learning improve cardiovascular risk prediction using routine clinical data?
TL;DR: In this article, the authors assessed whether machine-learning can improve cardiovascular risk prediction and found that machine learning offers an opportunity to improve accuracy by exploiting complex interactions between risk factors, which can increase the number of patients who could benefit from preventive treatment, while avoiding unnecessary treatment of others.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Acute liver injury associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the role of risk factors.
TL;DR: The risk of clinically important acute liver injury associated with the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is sufficiently small as to be of minimal concern for most NSAIDs.
Journal ArticleDOI
Use of First- and Second-Generation Cyclooxygenase-2–Selective Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction
TL;DR: This study supports the hypothesis that the elevated risk of AMI is a class effect of COX-2 inhibitors, and the increase in risk appears to be dose dependent, but further data are needed to verify this observation.
Journal ArticleDOI
Validation of the diagnosis of autism in general practitioner records
Eric Fombonne,Lisa Heavey,Liam Smeeth,Laura C. Rodrigues,Claire Cook,Pete Smith,Linyan Meng,Andrew J. Hall +7 more
TL;DR: This study provides evidence that the positive predictive value of a diagnosis of autism recorded in the GPRD is high.
Journal ArticleDOI
The quality of information recorded on a UK database of primary care records: A study of hospitalizations due to hypoglycemia and other conditions
TL;DR: Information derived from photocopied hospital discharge summaries and GPs' questionnaires is compared to the information recorded in the VAMP Research data bank, which contains information recorded by general practitioners in the United Kingdom.
Journal ArticleDOI
Diagnostic accuracy of physician review, expert algorithms and data-derived algorithms in adult verbal autopsies.
TL;DR: For those settings where physician review is not feasible, expert and data-derived algorithms provide an alternative approach for assigning many causes of death.