Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37615791›Full record

ArticleArchives of osteoporosis2023

Validation of forearm fracture diagnoses in administrative patient registers.

Tone Kristin Omsland, Lene B Solberg, Åshild Bjørnerem, Tove T Borgen, Camilla Andreasen, Torbjørn Wisløff, Gunhild Hagen, Trude Basso, Jan-Erik Gjertsen, Ellen M Apalset and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of osteoporosis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Fracture liaison service (FLS) is associated with lower subsequent fragility fracture risk and mortality: NoFRACT (the Norwegian capture the fracture initiative).Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Epidemiology of forearm fractures in women and men in Norway 2008-2019.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    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

23 authors.

Tone Kristin OmslandDepartment of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Blindern, Po box 1130, 0318, Oslo, Norway. t.k.omsland@medisin.uio.no.
Lene B SolbergDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Åshild BjørneremDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Tove T BorgenDepartment of Rheumatology, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Drammen Hospital, Drammen, Norway.
Camilla AndreasenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Torbjørn WisløffHealth Services Research Unit, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway.
Gunhild HagenDepartment of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Trude BassoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Olavs University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Jan-Erik GjertsenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ellen M ApalsetBergen Group of Epidemiology and Biomarkers in Rheumatic Disease, Department of Rheumatology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Wender FigvedDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Bærum Hospital, Gjettum, Norway.
Jens M StutzerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust, Hospital of Molde, Molde, Norway.
Frida I NissenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Ann K HansenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Ragnar M JoakimsenDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Elisa FigariDepartment of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Blindern, Po box 1130, 0318, Oslo, Norway.
Geoffrey PeelDepartment of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Blindern, Po box 1130, 0318, Oslo, Norway.
Ali A RashidDepartment of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Blindern, Po box 1130, 0318, Oslo, Norway.
Jashar KhoshkhabariDepartment of Clinical Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Erik F EriksenPilestredet Park Specialist Centre, Oslo, Norway.
Lars NordslettenDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Frede FrihagenInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Cecilie DahlDepartment of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Blindern, Po box 1130, 0318, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The validity of forearm fracture diagnoses recorded in five Norwegian hospitals was investigated using image reports and medical records as gold standard. A relatively high completeness and correctness of the diagnoses was found. Algorithms used to define forearm fractures in administrative data should depend on study purpose. PURPOSE: In Norway, forearm fractures are routinely recorded in the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR). However, these data have not been validated. Data from patient administrative systems (PAS) at hospitals are sent unabridged to NPR. By using data from PAS, we aimed to examine (1) the validity of the forearm fracture diagnoses and (2) the usefulness of washout periods, follow-up codes, and procedure codes to define incident forearm fracture cases.

methodsThis hospital-based validation study included women and men aged ≥ 19 years referred to five hospitals for treatment of a forearm fracture during selected periods in 2015. Administrative data for the ICD-10 forearm fracture code S52 (with all subgroups) in PAS and the medical records were reviewed. X-ray and computed tomography (CT) reports from examinations of forearms were reviewed independently and linked to the data from PAS. Sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated using image reports and/or review of medical records as gold standard.

resultsAmong the 8482 reviewed image reports and medical records, 624 patients were identified with an incident forearm fracture during the study period. The sensitivity of PAS registrations was 90.4% (95% CI: 87.8-92.6). The PPV increased from 73.9% (95% CI: 70.6-77.0) in crude data to 90.5% (95% CI: 88.0-92.7) when using a washout period of 6 months. Using procedure codes and follow-up codes in addition to 6-months washout increased the PPV to 94.0%, but the sensitivity fell to 69.0%.

conclusionA relatively high sensitivity of forearm fracture diagnoses was found in PAS. PPV varied depending on the algorithms used to define cases. Choice of algorithm should therefore depend on study purposes. The results give useful measures of forearm fracture diagnoses from administrative patient registers. Depending on local coding practices and treatment pathways, we infer that the findings are relevant to other fracture diagnoses and registers.

Indexed as

Forearm InjuriesFractures, BoneAdultAlgorithmsFemaleForearmHospitalsHumansMaleForearm fracturePositive predictive valueSensitivityValidation

Identifiers

PMID37615791
PMCPMC10449697

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.