ArticleBMJ open2016
Validation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnoses in healthcare databases: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review: development of a consensus code set to identify cirrhosis in electronic health records.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Accuracy of administrative databases in detecting primary breast cancer diagnoses: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Material Use for Air Leakage Prevention Post-Lung Resection: Insights from Real-World Data in Japan.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2026Article
- Validation of Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Recording in Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review.Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (Miami, Fla.) · 2025Article
- Care by general practitioners for patients with asthma or COPD during the COVID-19 pandemic.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Validity of cerebrovascular ICD-9-CM codes in healthcare administrative databases. The Umbria Data-Value Project.PloS one · 2020Article
- Code sets for respiratory symptoms in electronic health records research: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Safety of Beta-Blockers in COPD.EClinicalMedicine · 2019Article
- Accuracy of colorectal cancer ICD-9-CM codes in Italian administrative healthcare databases: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Article
- Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review.Clinical epidemiology · 2017Review
- Article
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealthcare databases are useful sources to investigate the epidemiology of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), to assess longitudinal outcomes in patients with COPD, and to develop disease management strategies. However, in order to constitute a reliable source for research, healthcare databases need to be validated. The aim of this protocol is to perform the first systematic review of studies reporting the validation of codes related to COPD diagnoses in healthcare databases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases will be searched using appropriate search strategies. Studies that evaluated the validity of COPD codes (such as the International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision and 10th Revision system; the Real codes system or the International Classification of Primary Care) in healthcare databases will be included. Inclusion criteria will be: (1) the presence of a reference standard case definition for COPD; (2) the presence of at least one test measure (eg, sensitivity, positive predictive values, etc); and (3) the use of a healthcare database (including administrative claims databases, electronic healthcare databases or COPD registries) as a data source. Pairs of reviewers will independently abstract data using standardised forms and will assess quality using a checklist based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) criteria. This systematic review protocol has been produced in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. Results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The results from this systematic review will be used for outcome research on COPD and will serve as a guide to identify appropriate case definitions of COPD, and reference standards, for researchers involved in validating healthcare databases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015029204.
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.