Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27909036›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Defining adolescent common mental disorders using electronic primary care data: a comparison with outcomes measured using the CIS-R.

Rosie P Cornish, Ann John, Andy Boyd, Kate Tilling, John Macleod

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  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
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

5 authors.

Rosie P CornishSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ann JohnFarr Institute, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Andy BoydSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kate TillingSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
John MacleodSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

Arthritis Research UKBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeMedical Research Council G9815508Medical Research Council MC_PC_15018Medical Research Council MR/K006525/1Medical Research Council MR/L012081/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 102215/2/13/2Wellcome Trust WT086118/Z/08/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the prevalence of common mental disorders (CMDs) derived from data held in primary care records with that measured using the revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) in order to assess the potential robustness of findings based only on routinely collected data. DESIGN AND

settingComparison study using linkage between the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and electronic primary care records.

participantsWe studied 1562 adolescents who had completed the CIS-R in ALSPAC at age 17-18 years and had linkage established to their primary care records. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures from ALSPAC were whether or not an individual met International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria for a diagnosis of (1) a CMD or, specifically, (2) depression. Lists of Read codes corresponding to diagnoses, symptoms and treatments were used to create 12 definitions of CMD and depression alone using the primary care data. We calculated sensitivities and specificities of these, using CIS-R definitions as the reference standard.

resultsSensitivities ranged from 5.2% to 24.3% for depression and from 3.8% to 19.2% for CMD. The specificities of all definitions were above 98% for depression and above 96% for CMD.For both outcomes, the definition that included current diagnosis, treatment or symptoms identified the highest proportion of CIS-R cases.

conclusionsMost individuals meeting case definitions for CMD based on primary care data also met CIS-R case definitions. Conversely many individuals identified as cases using the CIS-R had no evidence of CMD in their clinical records. This suggests that clinical databases are likely to yield underestimates of the burden of CMD in the population. However, clinical records appear to yield valid diagnoses which may be useful for studying risk factors and consequences of CMD. The greatest epidemiological value may be obtained when information is available from survey and clinical records.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsPrimary Health CarePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesAdolescentAlgorithmsDepressionFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMedical Record LinkageMental DisordersPredictive Value of TestsPrevalenceSex FactorsALSPACCIS-Rcommon mental disordersdata linkagedepressionelectronic patient records

Identifiers

PMID27909036
PMCPMC5168670

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.