ArticlePloS one2015
Refining hypertension surveillance to account for potentially misclassified cases.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Misclassification bias in chronic disease case ascertainment algorithms: a reclassification approach.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026Article
- Building and validating trend-based multiple sclerosis case definitions: a population-based cohort study for Manitoba, Canada.BMJ open · 2024Article
- A population-based study to develop juvenile arthritis case definitions for administrative health data using model-based dynamic classification.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Combining population-based administrative health records and electronic medical records for disease surveillance.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Validity of Canadian discharge abstract data for hypertension and diabetes from 2002 to 2013.CMAJ openArticle
- 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Administrative health data have been used in hypertension surveillance using the 1H2P method: the International Classification of Disease (ICD) hypertension diagnosis codes were recorded in at least 1 hospitalization or 2 physician claims within 2 year-period. Accumulation of false positive cases over time using the 1H2P method could result in the overestimation of hypertension prevalence. In this study, we developed and validated a new reclassification method to define hypertension cases using regularized logistic regression with the age, sex, hypertension and comorbidities in physician claims, and diagnosis of hypertension in hospital discharge data as independent variables. A Bayesian method was then used to adjust the prevalence estimated from the reclassification method. We evaluated the hypertension prevalence in data from Alberta, Canada using the currently accepted 1H2P method and these newly developed methods. The reclassification method with Bayesian adjustment produced similar prevalence estimates as the 1H2P method. This supports the continued use of the 1H2P method as a simple and practical way to conduct hypertension surveillance using administrative health data.
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.