Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30774449›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2019

The internal validation of weight and weight change coding using weight measurement data within the UK primary care Electronic Health Record.

Brian D Nicholson, Paul Aveyard, Willie Hamilton, Clare R Bankhead, Constantinos Koshiaris, Sarah Stevens, Frederick Dr Hobbs, Rafael Perera

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors.

Brian D NicholsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX26GG, UK, brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Paul AveyardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX26GG, UK, brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Willie HamiltonCollege of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
Clare R BankheadNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX26GG, UK, brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Constantinos KoshiarisNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX26GG, UK, brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Sarah StevensNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX26GG, UK, brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Frederick Dr HobbsNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX26GG, UK, brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Rafael PereraNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX26GG, UK, brian.nicholson@phc.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2015-08-185Department of Health IS-SPC-0514-10043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo use recorded weight values to internally validate weight status and weight change coding in the primary care Electronic Health Record (EHR). PATIENTS AND

methodsWe included adult patients with weight-related Read codes recorded in the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink EHR between 2000 and 2017. Weight status codes were compared to weight values recorded on the same day and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated for commonly used codes. Weight change codes were validated using three methods: the percentage (%) difference in kilograms at the time of the code and 1) the previous weight measurement, 2) the weight predicted using linear regression, and 3) the historic mean weight. Weight change codes were validated if estimates were consistent across two out of three methods.

resultsA total of 8,108,481 weight codes were recorded in 1,000,002 patients' EHR. Twice as many were recorded in females (n=5,208,593, 64%). The mean body mass index for "overweight" codes ranged from 31.9 kg/m

conclusionWe have developed an internationally applicable methodology to internally validate weight-related EHR coding by using available weight measurement data. We demonstrate the UK Read codes that can be confidently used to classify weight status and weight change in the absence of weight values. We provide the first evidence from primary care that a Read code for unexpected weight loss represents a mean loss of ≥ 5 % in a 6-month period, which was broadly consistent across age groups and gender.

Indexed as

body weightdata qualityelectronic health recordsprimary health carevalidation studiesweight gainweight loss

Identifiers

PMID30774449
PMCPMC6354686

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.