Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22035202›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2011

Validation of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnosis in computerized medical records in primary health care.

Carmen de Burgos-Lunar, Miguel A Salinero-Fort, Juan Cárdenas-Valladolid, Sonia Soto-Díaz, Carmen Y Fuentes-Rodríguez, Juan C Abánades-Herranz, Isabel del Cura-González

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Carmen de Burgos-LunarUnidad de Epidemiología Clínica e Investigación, Hospital Carlos III, (C/Sinesio Delgado, 10), Madrid, (28029), Spain. carmenblunar@hotmail.com
Miguel A Salinero-Fort
Juan Cárdenas-Valladolid
Sonia Soto-Díaz
Carmen Y Fuentes-Rodríguez
Juan C Abánades-Herranz
Isabel del Cura-González

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Medical Records Systems, ComputerizedPrimary Health CareAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDelayed DiagnosisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificitySpain

Identifiers

PMID22035202
PMCPMC3215645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.