ArticlePneumonia (Nathan Qld.)2024
Accuracy of the recording of pneumonia events in English electronic healthcare record data in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in Pneumonia (Nathan Qld.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn primary care, identifying pneumonia events in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be challenging due to similarities in symptoms with COPD exacerbations and lack of diagnostic testing. This study explored the accuracy of pneumonia diagnosis coded in primary care by comparing diagnosis in primary care with diagnosis in hospital.
methodsA study population of people with COPD in England was created using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum database linked with Hospital Episode Statistics inpatient data. Pneumonia codes only, and pneumonia code with associated clinical and/or treatment codes (chest x-ray, symptoms, antibiotics, sputum and blood culture) were used to determine pneumonia events in primary care. Events that were followed by hospitalisation within 7 days were used to estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of pneumonia coding in primary care, using primary diagnosis of pneumonia in secondary care as the gold standard. The PPV of primary care recording of hospitalised pneumonia was also calculated.
resultsTwo hundred seventy-four thousand one hundred fifty-six COPD patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 7,560 had an eligible pneumonia event in primary care diagnosed between 2015-2019 which was not 'hospital-acquired' and was diagnosed and entered on the same day. Of the 2,094 events which were followed by hospitalisation within 7 days, 1,208 had a primary diagnosis of pneumonia in hospital, representing a PPV of pneumonia coding in primary care of 57.7% (95% CI 55.6%-59.8%). Another 284 (13.6%) were diagnosed as a COPD exacerbation and 114 (5.4%) were diagnosed as another respiratory disease. Use of additional pneumonia clinical and treatment codes had a modest effect on the PPV but substantially lowered the number of events. Of the 33,603 eligible pneumonia events identified in secondary care, only 11,445 were recorded in primary care within 42 days, representing a sensitivity of 34.1% (95% CI 33.6%-34.6%).
conclusionsUse of primary care pneumonia codes and associated clinical and treatment codes to determine pneumonia is not recommended due to significant levels of misdiagnosis and many hospitalised events failing to be recorded in primary care.
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.