ArticleBMC medical research methodology2011
Validation of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnosis in computerized medical records in primary health care.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identification of validated case definitions for medical conditions used in primary care electronic medical record databases: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Pooled it
- [HDL-cholesterol concentration and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in people over 75 years of age: a cohort with half a million participants from the Community of Madrid].Hipertension y riesgo vascularGuideline
- Trial
- Implementation of KDIGO CKD Screening and Its Prognostic Implications in Community-Dwelling Adults Aged 75 Years or Older: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Inequalities in lifestyle and metabolic risk factors across wealth and education levels among TUMS employees.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Cohort Profile: A Descriptive Analysis of Patients Aged 75 Years and Older with Public Health Coverage in Madrid at Baseline, Including a 5-Year Preobservational Period (2015-2019).Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prospective association between plasma amino acids and three Multimorbidity patterns in older adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Association of socioeconomic status with prognosis in hypertensive patients over age 65: a cohort study in the community setting.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Effect of glucose variability on the mortality of adults aged 75 years and over during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Impact of hypertension diagnosis on morbidity and mortality: a retrospective cohort study in primary care.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Recording type 2 diabetes mellitus in a standardised central Saudi database: a retrospective validation study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Real-world data in primary care: validation of diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in primary care electronic medical records and estimated prevalence among consulting patients'.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Article
- [Factors associated with mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 in the population over 75 years of age in the Community of Madrid].Revista clinica espanola · 2022Article
- All-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in a Spanish nonagenarian cohort according to type 2 diabetes mellitus status and established cardiovascular disease.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Use of statins and associated factors in nonagenarians in the Community of Madrid, Spain.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022Observational
- Exercise facilities and the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes in the city of Madrid.Diabetologia · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputerized Clinical Records, which are incorporated in primary health care practice, have great potential for research. In order to use this information, data quality and reliability must be assessed to prevent compromising the validity of the results.The aim of this study is to validate the diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes mellitus in the computerized clinical records of primary health care, taking the diagnosis criteria established in the most prominently used clinical guidelines as the gold standard against which what measure the sensitivity, specificity, and determine the predictive values.The gold standard for diabetes mellitus was the diagnostic criteria established in 2003 American Diabetes Association Consensus Statement for diabetic subjects. The gold standard for hypertension was the diagnostic criteria established in the Joint National Committee published in 2003.
methodsA cross-sectional multicentre validation study of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnoses in computerized clinical records of primary health care was carried out. Diagnostic criteria from the most prominently clinical practice guidelines were considered for standard reference.Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and global agreement (with kappa index), were calculated. Results were shown overall and stratified by sex and age groups.
resultsThe agreement for diabetes mellitus with the reference standard as determined by the guideline was almost perfect (κ=0.990), with a sensitivity of 99.53%, a specificity of 99.49%, a positive predictive value of 91.23% and a negative predictive value of 99.98%.Hypertension diagnosis showed substantial agreement with the reference standard as determined by the guideline (κ=0.778), the sensitivity was 85.22%, the specificity 96.95%, the positive predictive value 85.24%, and the negative predictive value was 96.95%. Sensitivity results were worse in patients who also had diabetes and in those aged 70 years or over.
conclusionsOur results substantiate the validity of using diagnoses of diabetes and hypertension found within the computerized clinical records for epidemiologic studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.