Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28503076›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2017

Positive predictive value of peptic ulcer diagnosis codes in the Danish National Patient Registry.

Søren Viborg, Kirstine Kobberøe Søgaard, Peter Jepsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Søren ViborgDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology.
Kirstine Kobberøe SøgaardDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology.
Peter JepsenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology.
Aarhus University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnoses of peptic ulcer are registered in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) for administrative as well as research purposes, but it is unknown whether the coding validity depends on the location of the ulcer.

objectiveTo validate the International Classification of Diseases, 10

methodsWe identified all patients registered with a hospital discharge diagnosis of peptic ulcer from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, in 1995-2006. Among them, we randomly selected 200 who had an outpatient gastroscopy at the time of ulcer diagnosis. We reviewed the findings from these gastroscopies to confirm the presence of peptic ulcer and its location. We calculated PPVs and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of gastric and duodenal ulcer diagnoses, using descriptions from the gastroscopic examinations as standard reference.

resultsIn total, 182 records (91%) were available for review. The overall PPV of peptic ulcer diagnoses in DNPR was 95.6% (95% CI 91.5-98.1), with PPVs of 90.3% (95% CI 82.4-95.5) for gastric ulcer diagnoses, and 94.4% (95% CI 87.4-98.2) for duodenal ulcer diagnoses. PPVs were constant over time.

conclusionThe PPV of uncomplicated peptic ulcer diagnoses in the DNPR is high, and the location of the ulcers is registered correctly in most cases, indicating that the diagnoses are useful for research purposes.

Indexed as

Danish National Patient Registrydiagnosispeptic ulcerpositive predictive valuevalidation

Identifiers

PMID28503076
PMCPMC5426472
OpenAlexW2611161086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.