Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37589591›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2023

A comparison of two registry-based systems for the surveillance of persons hospitalised with COVID-19 in Norway, February 2020 to May 2022.

Robert Whittaker, Salla Toikkanen, Katharine Dean, Trude Marie Lyngstad, Eirik Alnes Buanes, Hilde Kløvstad, Trine Hessevik Paulsen, Elina Seppälä

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Federated systems for automated infection surveillance: a perspective.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024
    Review
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.

Robert WhittakerDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Salla ToikkanenDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Katharine DeanDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Trude Marie LyngstadDepartment of Infection Control and Preparedness, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Eirik Alnes BuanesDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Hilde KløvstadDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Trine Hessevik PaulsenDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Elina SeppäläDepartment of Infection Control and Vaccines, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundThe surveillance of persons hospitalised with COVID-19 has been essential to ensure timely and appropriate public health response. Ideally, surveillance systems should distinguish persons hospitalised with COVID-19 from those hospitalised due to COVID-19.AimWe compared data in two national electronic health registries in Norway to critically appraise and inform the further development of the surveillance of persons hospitalised with COVID-19.MethodWe included hospitalised COVID-19 patients registered in the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR) or the Norwegian Pandemic Registry (NoPaR) with admission dates between 17 February 2020 and 1 May 2022. We linked patients, identified overlapping hospitalisation periods and described the overlap between the registries. We described the prevalence of International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnosis codes and their combinations by main cause of admission (clinically assessed as COVID-19 or other), age and time.ResultsIn the study period, 19,486 admissions with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were registered in NoPaR and 21,035 with the corresponding ICD-10 code U07.1 in NPR. Up to late 2021, there was a 90-100% overlap between the registries, which thereafter decreased to < 75%. The prevalence of ICD-10 codes varied by reported main cause, age and time.ConclusionChanges in patient cohorts, virus characteristics and the management of COVID-19 patients from late 2021 impacted the registration of patients and coding practices in the registries. Using ICD-10 codes for the surveillance of persons hospitalised due to COVID-19 requires age- and time-specific definitions and ongoing validation to consider temporal changes in patient cohorts and virus characteristics.

Indexed as

COVID-19HospitalizationHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesNorwayRegistriesCOVID-19electronic health registryhospitalisationInternational Classification of DiseasesNorwaysurveillance

Identifiers

PMID37589591
PMCPMC10436689

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.