Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36268007›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2022

Does a Code for Acute Myocardial Infarction Mean the Same in All Norwegian Hospitals? A Likelihood Approach to a Medical Record Review.

Jon Helgeland, Doris Tove Kristoffersen, Katrine Damgaard Skyrud

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jon HelgelandDivision for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9348-7844
Doris Tove KristoffersenDivision for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Katrine Damgaard SkyrudDivision for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Health registries are important data sources for epidemiology, quality monitoring, and improvement. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a common, serious condition. Little is known about variation in the positive predictive value (PPV) of a coded AMI diagnosis and its association with hospital quality indicators. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between PPV and registry-based 30-day mortality after AMI admission and between-hospital variation in PPV. Study Design and Setting: An electronic record review was performed in a nationwide sample of Norwegian hospitals. Clinical signs and cardiac troponin measurements were abstracted and analyzed using a mixture model for likelihood ratios and parametric bootstrapping. Results: The overall PPV was estimated to be 97%. We found no statistically significant association between hospital PPV and the classification of hospitals into low, intermediate, and high registry-based 30-day mortality. There was significant variation between hospitals, with a PPV range of 91-100%. Conclusion: We found no evidence that variation in PPV of AMI diagnosis can explain variation between hospitals in registry-based 30-day mortality after admission. However, PPV varied significantly between hospitals. We were able to use a very efficient statistical approach to the analysis and handling of various sources of uncertainty.

Indexed as

cardiac troponinscase fatalityfinite mixture modelshealth registriesquality indicators

Identifiers

PMID36268007
PMCPMC9577561

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.