{"title":"Cardiovascular Data Quality in the Danish National Patient Registry (1977-2024): A Systematic Review.","authors":"Katrine Hjuler Lund, Cecilia Hvitfeldt Fuglsang, Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, Morten Schmidt","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S471335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The increasing use of routinely collected health data for research puts great demands on data quality. The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) is renowned for its longitudinal data registration since 1977 and is a commonly used data source for cardiovascular epidemiology.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide an overview and examine determinants of the cardiovascular data quality in the DNPR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Danish Medical Journal, and identified papers validating cardiovascular variables in the DNPR during 1977-2024. We also included papers from reference lists, citations, journal e-mail notifications, and colleagues. Measures of data quality included the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 2,049 papers to identify 63 relevant papers, including a total of 229 cardiovascular variables. Of these, 200 variables assessed diagnoses, 24 assessed treatments (10 surgeries and 14 other treatments), and 5 assessed examinations. The data quality varied substantially between variables. Overall, the PPV was ≥90% for 36% of variables, 80-89% for 26%, 70-79% for 16%, 60-69% for 7%, 50-59% for 4%, and <50% for 11% of variables. The predictive value was generally higher for treatments (PPV≥95% for 92%) and examinations (PPV≥95% for 100%) than for diagnoses (PPV≥80% for 71%). Moreover, the PPV varied for individual diagnoses depending on the algorithm used to identify them. Key determinants for validity were patient contact type (inpatient vs outpatient), diagnosis type (primary vs secondary), setting (university vs regional hospitals), and calendar year.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The validity of cardiovascular variables in the DNPR is high for treatments and examinations but varies considerably between individual diagnoses depending on the algorithm used to define them.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"16 ","pages":"865-900"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11645903/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S471335","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The increasing use of routinely collected health data for research puts great demands on data quality. The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) is renowned for its longitudinal data registration since 1977 and is a commonly used data source for cardiovascular epidemiology.
Objective: To provide an overview and examine determinants of the cardiovascular data quality in the DNPR.
Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Danish Medical Journal, and identified papers validating cardiovascular variables in the DNPR during 1977-2024. We also included papers from reference lists, citations, journal e-mail notifications, and colleagues. Measures of data quality included the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity.
Results: We screened 2,049 papers to identify 63 relevant papers, including a total of 229 cardiovascular variables. Of these, 200 variables assessed diagnoses, 24 assessed treatments (10 surgeries and 14 other treatments), and 5 assessed examinations. The data quality varied substantially between variables. Overall, the PPV was ≥90% for 36% of variables, 80-89% for 26%, 70-79% for 16%, 60-69% for 7%, 50-59% for 4%, and <50% for 11% of variables. The predictive value was generally higher for treatments (PPV≥95% for 92%) and examinations (PPV≥95% for 100%) than for diagnoses (PPV≥80% for 71%). Moreover, the PPV varied for individual diagnoses depending on the algorithm used to identify them. Key determinants for validity were patient contact type (inpatient vs outpatient), diagnosis type (primary vs secondary), setting (university vs regional hospitals), and calendar year.
Conclusion: The validity of cardiovascular variables in the DNPR is high for treatments and examinations but varies considerably between individual diagnoses depending on the algorithm used to define them.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.
Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews.
Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews.
When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes.
The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.