Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35418783›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2022

Importance of Reporting Complete Procedures of Identifying Patients from the Danish National Patient Registry: The Case of Neonatal Jaundice and Epilepsy.

Yuelian Sun, Julie Werenberg Dreier, Chunsen Wu, Vera Ehrenstein, Jakob Christensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Yuelian SunDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-6905-0503
Julie Werenberg DreierNational Centre for Register-Based Research, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Chunsen WuDepartment of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Vera EhrensteinDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3415-3254
Jakob ChristensenDepartment of Neurology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) is a valuable resource for medical and epidemiological Research. However, not all research articles fully described procedures they used to identify events. In this study, we compared two approaches in identifying persons with a disease diagnosis using neonatal jaundice and epilepsy as examples. Methods: A cohort of singletons born alive between the 1st January 1997 and the 30th November 2016 in Denmark was used for this purpose. Diagnostic information for a hospital contact in the registry included a primary diagnosis, secondary diagnoses, referral diagnoses, and additional information to a diagnosis (associated diagnoses), if any. Approach 1 identified patients of interest by considering all diagnostic information with exclusion of referral diagnoses only. Approach 2 identified patients of interest by additionally excluding diagnoses from a hospital contact that were coded with Z00 - Z99 of ICD-10 (for health service on examination and reproduction, etc.) as the main reason of the hospital contact. We presented the proportion of people with a diagnosis of neonatal jaundice and epilepsy by the two approaches and explored the potential explanations for the difference. Results: For the example of neonatal jaundice, the study population included N=1,186,683 persons. The proportion of children with a diagnosis of neonatal jaundice was 5.5% (n=66,736) by approach 1 and 3.9% (n=45,928) by approach 2. For the example of epilepsy, the study population included N=1,183,273 persons. The proportion of children with a diagnosis of epilepsy were 1.2% (n=14,604) by approach 1 and 0.9% (n=10,441) by approach 2. Discussion: This study demonstrated that the two approaches identified different proportion of persons with a diagnosis of neonatal jaundice and epilepsy. We advocated researchers report complete procedures of identifying patients for making research findings reproducible and comparable.

Indexed as

health administrative datamisclassification of diagnosisthe Danish National Patient Registry

Identifiers

PMID35418783
PMCPMC8995155

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.