Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37567603›Full record

SynthesisOpen heart2023

Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases.

Amy Johnston, Sonia R Dancey, Victrine Tseung, Becky Skidmore, Peter Tanuseputro, Graeme N Smith, Thais Coutinho, Jodi D Edwards

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Open heart, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Trends in rate of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and associated morbidities in Canada: a population-based study (2012-2021).CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy JohnstonSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Amy.Johnston@uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1934-7867
Sonia R DanceySchool of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Victrine TseungBrain and Heart Nexus Research Program, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Becky SkidmoreIndependent Information Specialist, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Peter TanuseputroOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Graeme N SmithDivision of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Thais CoutinhoSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jodi D EdwardsSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
University of Ottawa · CAKingston Health Sciences Centre · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdministrative data are frequently used to study cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). Little is known about the validity of case-finding definitions (CFDs, eg, disease classification codes/algorithms) designed to identify HDP in administrative databases.

methodsA systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and grey literature sources for eligible studies. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility and extracted data. Quality of reporting was assessed using checklists; risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool, adapted for administrative studies. Findings were summarised descriptively.

resultsTwenty-six studies were included; most (62%) validated CFDs for a variety of maternal and/or neonatal outcomes. Six studies (24%) reported reference standard definitions for all HDP definitions validated; seven reported all 2×2 table values for ≥1 CFD or they were calculable. Most CFDs (n=83; 58%) identified HDP with high specificity (ie, ≥98%); however, sensitivity varied widely (3%-100%). CFDs validated for any maternal hypertensive disorder had the highest median sensitivity (91%, range: 15%-97%). Quality of reporting was generally poor, and all studies were at unclear or high risk of bias on ≥1 QUADAS-2 domain.

conclusionsEven validated CFDs are subject to bias. Researchers should choose the CFD(s) that best align with their research objective, while considering the relative importance of high sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and/or positive predictive value, and important characteristics of the validation studies from which they were derived (eg, study prevalence of HDP, spectrum of disease studied, methodological rigour, quality of reporting and risk of bias). Higher quality validation studies on this topic are urgently needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021239113.

Indexed as

Hypertension, Pregnancy-InducedDatabases, FactualDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancySensitivity and SpecificityEpidemiologyHypertensionPregnancySystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID37567603
PMCPMC10423835
OpenAlexW4385766042

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.