Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33116903›Full record

ReviewClinical epidemiology2020

Validity of Acute Cardiovascular Outcome Diagnoses Recorded in European Electronic Health Records: A Systematic Review.

Jennifer Davidson, Amitava Banerjee, Rutendo Muzambi, Liam Smeeth, Charlotte Warren-Gash

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  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
  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

5 authors.

Jennifer DavidsonFaculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1599-7504
Amitava BanerjeeInstitute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK.
Rutendo MuzambiFaculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0732-131X
Liam SmeethFaculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Charlotte Warren-GashFaculty of Epidemiology & Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 201440/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health records are widely used in cardiovascular disease research. We appraised the validity of stroke, acute coronary syndrome and heart failure diagnoses in studies conducted using European electronic health records.

methodsUsing a prespecified strategy, we systematically searched seven databases from dates of inception to April 2019. Two reviewers independently completed study selection, followed by partial parallel data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value estimates were narratively synthesized and heterogeneity between sensitivity and PPV estimates were assessed using I

resultsWe identified 81 studies, of which 20 validated heart failure diagnoses, 31 validated acute coronary syndrome diagnoses with 29 specifically recording estimates for myocardial infarction, and 41 validated stroke diagnoses. Few studies reported specificity or negative predictive value estimates. Sensitivity was ≤66% in all but one heart failure study, ≥80% for 91% of myocardial infarction studies, and ≥70% for 73% of stroke studies. PPV was ≥80% in 74% of heart failure, 88% of myocardial infarction, and 70% of stroke studies. PPV by stroke subtype was variable, at ≥80% for 80% of ischaemic stroke but only 44% of haemorrhagic stroke. There was considerable heterogeneity (I

conclusionOverall, European electronic health record stroke, acute coronary syndrome and heart failure diagnoses are accurate for use in research, although validity estimates for heart failure and individual stroke subtypes were lower. Where possible, researchers should validate data before use or carefully interpret the results of previous validation studies for their own study purposes.

Indexed as

heart failuremyocardial infarctionstroke; routinely collected health datavalidation

Identifiers

PMID33116903
PMCPMC7569174

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.