ArticleBMJ open2020
Validation study of bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris recording in routinely collected electronic primary healthcare records in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Large-scale whole-exome sequencing analyses identified protein-coding variants associated with immune-mediated diseases in 350,770 adults.Nature communications · 2024Article
- A Global View of Pemphigus: Geographical Variations.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2024Review
- Accurate diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid requires multiple health care visits.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Lisinopril prevents bullous pemphigoid induced by dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitorsFrontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- Epidemiology of Pemphigus.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2021Review
- Using electronic health records to inform trial feasibility in a rare autoimmune blistering skin disease in England.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe validity of bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris recording in routinely collected healthcare data in the UK is unknown. We assessed the positive predictive value (PPV) for bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris primary care Read codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) using linked inpatient data (Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)) as the diagnostic benchmark.
settingAdult participants with bullous pemphigoid or pemphigus vulgaris registered with HES-linked general practices in England between January 1998 and December 2017. Code-based algorithms were used to identify patients from the CPRD and extract their benchmark blistering disease diagnosis from HES. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The PPVs of Read codes for bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris.
resultsOf 2468 incident cases of bullous pemphigoid and 431 of pemphigus vulgaris, 797 (32.3%) and 85 (19.7%) patients, respectively, had a hospitalisation record for a blistering disease. The PPV for bullous pemphigoid Read codes was 93.2% (95% CI 91.3% to 94.8%). Of the bullous pemphigoid cases, 3.0% had an HES diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris and 3.8% of another blistering disease. The PPV for pemphigus vulgaris Read codes was 58.5% (95% CI 48.0% to 68.9%). Of the pemphigus vulgaris cases, 24.7% had an HES diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid and 16.5% of another blistering disease.
conclusionsThe CPRD can be used to study bullous pemphigoid, but recording of pemphigus vulgaris needs to improve in primary care.
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.