Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26547088›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2016

Methods of defining hypertension in electronic medical records: validation against national survey data.

Mingkai Peng, Guanmin Chen, Gilaad G Kaplan, Lisa M Lix, Neil Drummond, Kelsey Lucyk, Stephanie Garies, Mark Lowerison, Samuel Weibe, Hude Quan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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. Article
  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

10 authors.

Mingkai PengDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.
Guanmin ChenAlberta Health Service, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 2T9.
Gilaad G KaplanDepartment of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1 Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1.
Lisa M LixDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3E 0W3.
Neil DrummondDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2C8.
Kelsey LucykDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.
Stephanie GariesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1.
Mark LowerisonCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1.
Samuel WeibeDepartments of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4N1.
Hude QuanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 4Z6.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic medical records (EMR) can be a cost-effective source for hypertension surveillance. However, diagnosis of hypertension in EMR is commonly under-coded and warrants the needs to review blood pressure and antihypertensive drugs for hypertension case identification.

methodsWe included all the patients actively registered in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, UK, on 31 December 2011. Three case definitions using diagnosis code, antihypertensive drug prescriptions and abnormal blood pressure, respectively, were used to identify hypertension patients. We compared the prevalence and treatment rate of hypertension in THIN with results from Health Survey for England (HSE) in 2011.

resultsCompared with prevalence reported by HSE (29.7%), the use of diagnosis code alone (14.0%) underestimated hypertension prevalence. The use of any of the definitions (38.4%) or combination of antihypertensive drug prescriptions and abnormal blood pressure (38.4%) had higher prevalence than HSE. The use of diagnosis code or two abnormal blood pressure records with a 2-year period (31.1%) had similar prevalence and treatment rate of hypertension with HSE.

conclusionsDifferent definitions should be used for different study purposes. The definition of 'diagnosis code or two abnormal blood pressure records with a 2-year period' could be used for hypertension surveillance in THIN.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsAdolescentAdultAgedAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureCross-Sectional StudiesDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceUnited KingdomYoung AdultAntihypertensive Agentsantihypertensive drugblood pressurediagnosis codeelectronic medical recordshypertension

Identifiers

PMID26547088
PMCPMC5072168

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.