ArticlePrimary health care research & development2022
Are major lower extremity amputations well recorded in primary care electronic health records?: Insights from primary care electronic health records in England.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMajor lower extremity amputations (MLEAs) are understood to be well recorded in secondary care in England in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. It is unclear how well MLEAs are recorded in primary care databases.
backgroundThis study compared MLEA event case ascertainment in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to that in HES.
methodsMLEA events were ascertained in CPRD and in HES linkage between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019. The number of MLEA events and the number of patients with at least one MLEA in each database were recorded and compared. Individual events were matched between the databases using varying date-matching windows. Reasons for differences in case ascertainment were explored.
findingsIn total 23 262 patients had at least one MLEA record, 8716 (37.5%) had an MLEA record in HES only, 5393 (23.2%) in CPRD only and 9153 (39.4%) in both. Out of a total of 75 221 events, 13 071 (62.4%) were recorded in HES only and 44 151 (81.3%) in CPRD only. 7874 (37.6%) of HES events were recorded in CPRD and 10 125 (18.6%) of CPRD events were recorded in HES when using the maximum date matching window of 28 days plus the time between admission and procedure. The main reasons for differences in case ascertainment included, re-recordings and miscoding in CPRD.Compared to HES, MLEAs are poorly recorded in CPRD predominantly due to re-recordings of events and miscoding procedures. CPRD data cannot solely be relied upon to ascertain cases of MLEA; however, HES linkage to CPRD may be useful to obtain medical history of diagnoses, medication and diagnostic tests.
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.