ArticleClinical epidemiology2022
The Danish Heart Failure Registry: A Validation Study of Content.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization patterns and determinants of guideline-recommended therapies for acute heart failure in Denmark.European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care · 2026Article
- Real-world use of guideline-directed therapy for heart failure: Insights from the Danish Heart Failure Registry.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Prognostic impact of iron deficiency in new-onset chronic heart failure: Danish Heart Failure Registry insights.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
- Validity of heart failure diagnoses, treatments, and readmissions in the Danish National Patient Registry.International journal of population data science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Danish Heart Failure Registry (DHFR) is a clinical quality database established to monitor and improve the quality of heart failure (HF) care in Denmark. Objective: We examined the validity of the content of the DHFR. Methods: In a random sample of patients registered in DHFR between the 1st of January 2016 to the 31st of December 2018, we determined the agreement between the information entered in the database and information in the medical records regarding 1) content; 2) sensitivity; 3) specificity; 4) positive predictive values (PPV) as well as negative predictive values (NPV) of all patient characteristics and performance measures obtained in the DHFR. Results: The study population included 453 patients. In general, the content of the DHFR was accurate. Patient characteristics showed high PPV between 93.0% and 99.5% for all variables. Sensitivity ranged from 81.0% to 95.2%, specificity from 79.8% to 99.5% and NPV ranged from 81.4% to 99.0%. The pharmacological performance measures showed high agreement regarding sensitivity (77.4% to 98.6%) and PPV (84.0% to 94.0%). Further, the specificity ranged from 66.7% to 98.0% and NPP ranged from 90.1% to 96.5%. For the non-pharmacological performance measures, patient education showed high sensitivity (98.0%, 95% CI 96.1-99.1) and PPV (94.9% CI: 93.0-96.3), whereas referral to exercise training had a lower sensitivity of 77.8% (CI: 71.6-83.1) and a PPV of 74.5% (CI: 69.6-78.6). Conclusion: Overall, the Danish Heart Failure Registry have a high degree of completeness and validity, making it a valuable tool for clinical epidemiological research in HF.
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.