Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38225527›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2024

Assessing the importance of primary care diagnoses in the UK Biobank.

Lei Clifton, Xiaonan Liu, Jennifer A Collister, Thomas J Littlejohns, Naomi Allen, David J Hunter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Lei CliftonNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. lei.clifton@ndph.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5595-8468
Xiaonan LiuNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jennifer A CollisterNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Thomas J LittlejohnsNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Naomi AllenNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David J HunterNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBHarvard University · US

Funding

Cancer Research UK 29186Cancer Research UK C16077/A29186
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The UK Biobank has made general practitioner (GP) data (censoring date 2016-2017) available for approximately 45% of the cohort, whilst hospital inpatient and death registry (referred to as "HES/Death") data are available cohort-wide through 2018-2022 depending on whether the data comes from England, Wales or Scotland. We assessed the importance of case ascertainment via different data sources in UKB for three diseases that are usually first diagnosed in primary care: Parkinson's disease (PD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and all-cause dementia. Including GP data at least doubled the number of incident cases in the subset of the cohort with primary care data (e.g. from 619 to 1390 for dementia). Among the 786 dementia cases that were only captured in the GP data before the GP censoring date, only 421 (54%) were subsequently recorded in HES. Therefore, estimates of the absolute incidence or risk-stratified incidence are misleadingly low when based only on the HES/Death data. For incident cases present in both HES/Death and GP data during the full follow-up period (i.e. until the HES censoring date), the median time difference between an incident diagnosis of dementia being recorded in GP and HES/Death was 2.25 years (i.e. recorded 2.25 years earlier in the GP records). Similar lag periods were also observed for PD (median 2.31 years earlier) and T2D (median 2.82 years earlier). For participants with an incident GP diagnosis, only 65.6% of dementia cases, 69.0% of PD cases, and 58.5% of T2D cases had their diagnosis recorded in HES/Death within 7 years since GP diagnosis. The effect estimates (hazard ratios, HR) of established risk factors for the three health outcomes mostly remain in the same direction and with a similar strength of association when cases are ascertained either using HES only or further adding GP data. The confidence intervals of the HR became narrower when adding GP data, due to the increased statistical power from the additional cases. In conclusion, it is desirable to extend both the coverage and follow-up period of GP data to allow researchers to maximise case ascertainment of chronic health conditions in the UK.

Indexed as

DementiaDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Parkinson DiseaseBiological Specimen BanksHumansPrimary Health CareUK BiobankDementiaGeneral practice (GP)Parkinson’s disease (PD)Primary careType 2 diabetes (T2D)UK Biobank

Identifiers

PMID38225527
PMCPMC10904436
OpenAlexW4390893238

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.