ArticleESC heart failure2024
Identification of heart failure hospitalization from NHS Digital data: comparison with expert adjudication.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Body Mass Index, Clinical Outcomes, and Mortality in Heart Failure: A Mendelian Randomization Study.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Reason for hospitalization contrasting adjudication versus ICD-10-CM coding among persons with HIV, 2016-2019.AIDS research and therapy · 2026Article
- Identification of heart failure hospitalization from NHS Digital data: comparison with expert adjudication.ESC heart failure · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPopulation-wide, person-level, linked electronic health record data are increasingly used to estimate epidemiology, guide resource allocation, and identify events in clinical trials. The accuracy of data from NHS Digital (now part of NHS England) for identifying hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), a key HF standard, is not clear. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of NHS Digital data for identifying HHF. METHODS AND
resultsPatients experiencing at least one HHF, as determined by NHS Digital data, and age- and sex-matched patients not experiencing HHF, were identified from a prospective cohort study and underwent expert adjudication. Three code sets commonly used to identify HHF were applied to the data and compared with expert adjudication (I50: International Classification of Diseases-10 codes beginning I50; OIS: Clinical Commissioning Groups Outcomes Indicator Set; and NICOR: National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research, used as the basis for the National Heart Failure Audit in England and Wales). Five hundred four patients underwent expert adjudication, of which 10 (2%) were adjudicated to have experienced HHF. Specificity was high across all three code sets in the first diagnosis position {I50: 96.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1-97.7%]; NICOR: 93.3% [CI 90.8-95.4%]; OIS: 95.6% [CI 93.3-97.2%]} but decreased substantially as the number of diagnosis positions expanded. Sensitivity [40.0% (CI 12.2-73.8%)] and positive predictive value (PPV) [highest with I50: 17.4% (CI 8.1-33.6%)] were low in the first diagnosis position for all coding sets. PPV was higher for the National Heart Failure Audit criteria, albeit modestly [36.4% (CI 16.6-62.2%)].
conclusionsNHS Digital data were not able to accurately identify HHF and should not be used in isolation for this purpose.
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.