Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30667114›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2019

The validity of dementia diagnoses in routinely collected electronic health records in the United Kingdom: A systematic review.

Luke A McGuinness, Charlotte Warren-Gash, Louisa R Moorhouse, Sara L Thomas

Abstract readSystematic ReviewValidation Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  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

4 authors.

Luke A McGuinnessDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8730-9761
Charlotte Warren-GashFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Louisa R MoorhouseFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sara L ThomasFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHRRM-SR-2016-07-26Wellcome Trust 201440/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 201440_Z_16_Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of the study is to assess the validity of codes or algorithms used to identify dementia in UK electronic health record (EHR) primary care and hospitalisation databases.

methodsRelevant studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE/EMBASE databases from inception to June 2018, hand-searching reference lists, and consulting experts. The search strategy included synonyms for "Dementia", "Europe", and "EHR". Studies were included if they validated dementia diagnoses in UK primary care or hospitalisation databases, irrespective of validation method used. The Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess risk of bias.

resultsFrom 1469 unique records, 14 relevant studies were included. Thirteen validated individual diagnoses against a reference standard, reporting high estimates of validity. Most reported only the positive predictive value (PPV), with estimates ranging between 0.09 and 1.0 and 0.62 and 0.85 in primary care and hospitalisation databases, respectively. One study performed a rate comparison, indicating good generalisability of dementia diagnoses in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database to the UK population. Studies were of low methodological quality. As studies were not comparable, no summary validity estimates were produced.

conclusionWhile heterogenous across studies, reported validity estimates were generally high. However, the credibility of these estimates is limited by the methodological quality of studies, primarily resulting from insufficient blinding of researchers interpreting the reference test. Inadequate reporting, particularly of the specific codes validated, hindered comparison of estimates across studies. Future validation studies should make use of more robust reference tests, follow established reporting guidelines, and calculate all measures of validity.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsData AccuracyDatabases, FactualDementiaElectronic Health RecordsHospitalizationHumansPrimary Health CareSensitivity and SpecificityUnited Kingdomdementiadiagnosiselectronic health recordspharmacoepidemiologysystematic reviewUnited Kingdomvalidity

Identifiers

PMID30667114
PMCPMC6519035

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.