Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22942652›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2012

Challenges in validating quality of care data in a schizophrenia registry: experience from the Danish National Indicator Project.

Charlotte Gjørup Pedersen, Jaimie L Gradus, Søren Paaske Johnsen, Jan Mainz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Danish Schizophrenia Registry.Clinical epidemiology · 2016
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Charlotte Gjørup PedersenDepartment South, Aalborg Psychiatric Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jaimie L Gradus
Søren Paaske Johnsen
Jan Mainz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImprovement of quality of care for psychiatric patients is a key objective of health care systems worldwide. Consequently, there is an increasing interest in documenting quality of care; however, little is known about the validity of the available data on psychiatric care.

objectiveTo assess the validity of process of care data recorded in the Danish National Indicator Project (DNIP), a national population-based registry containing quality of care data of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia in Denmark.

methodsA random sample of 1% of patients with schizophrenia registered in the DNIP between 2004 and 2009 (111 inpatient and 85 outpatient) was identified for validation. Medical records for these patients, which were used as the gold standard, were retrieved and reviewed for information on the processes of care received. Agreement between the data in the DNIP and the medical records were assessed by computing sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values.

resultsThe agreement between the recorded processes of care in the DNIP and in the medical records varied substantially across the individual process of care variables. However, a collection of the processes of care demonstrated a high agreement (80% or more) between data in the DNIP and the medical records, according to all examined aspects of data validity (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values). The medical records contained varying levels of missing information regarding the processes of care, from 1% for antipsychotic medication prescription to 54% for psychoeducation.

conclusionCurrent documentation practices in Danish psychiatric hospitals appear to be inconsistent and may preclude the use of psychiatric medical records as the gold standard when validating registry data.

Indexed as

quality of careregistryschizophreniaThe Danish National Indicator Projectvalidation

Identifiers

PMID22942652
PMCPMC3426270

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.