Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38840250›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024

Undercounting diagnoses in Australian general practice: a data quality study with implications for population health reporting.

Rachel Canaway, Christine Chidgey, Christine Mary Hallinan, Daniel Capurro, Douglas Ir Boyle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Congenital anomaly registers in Australia: A national challenge.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors.

Rachel CanawayDepartment of General Practice & Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, Health & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), The University of Melbourne, Level 4, Medical Building (BN181), Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Christine ChidgeyDepartment of General Practice & Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, Health & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), The University of Melbourne, Level 4, Medical Building (BN181), Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Christine Mary HallinanDepartment of General Practice & Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, Health & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), The University of Melbourne, Level 4, Medical Building (BN181), Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Daniel CapurroCentre for the Digital Transformation of Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, 700 Swanston St, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Douglas Ir BoyleDepartment of General Practice & Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, Health & Biomedical Research Information Technology Unit (HaBIC R2), The University of Melbourne, Level 4, Medical Building (BN181), Grattan Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. dboyle@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosis can often be recorded in electronic medical records (EMRs) as free-text or using a term with a diagnosis code. Researchers, governments, and agencies, including organisations that deliver incentivised primary care quality improvement programs, frequently utilise coded data only and often ignore free-text entries. Diagnosis data are reported for population healthcare planning including resource allocation for patient care. This study sought to determine if diagnosis counts based on coded diagnosis data only, led to under-reporting of disease prevalence and if so, to what extent for six common or important chronic diseases.

methodsThis cross-sectional data quality study used de-identified EMR data from 84 general practices in Victoria, Australia. Data represented 456,125 patients who attended one of the general practices three or more times in two years between January 2021 and December 2022. We reviewed the percentage and proportional difference between patient counts of coded diagnosis entries alone and patient counts of clinically validated free-text entries for asthma, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes.

resultsUndercounts were evident in all six diagnoses when using coded diagnoses alone (2.57-36.72% undercount), of these, five were statistically significant. Overall, 26.4% of all patient diagnoses had not been coded. There was high variation between practices in recording of coded diagnoses, but coding for type 2 diabetes was well captured by most practices.

conclusionIn Australia clinical decision support and the reporting of aggregated patient diagnosis data to government that relies on coded diagnoses can lead to significant underreporting of diagnoses compared to counts that also incorporate clinically validated free-text diagnoses. Diagnosis underreporting can impact on population health, healthcare planning, resource allocation, and patient care. We propose the use of phenotypes derived from clinically validated text entries to enhance the accuracy of diagnosis and disease reporting. There are existing technologies and collaborations from which to build trusted mechanisms to provide greater reliability of general practice EMR data used for secondary purposes.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsGeneral PracticeAdultAgedAustraliaChronic DiseaseClinical CodingCross-Sectional StudiesData AccuracyDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPopulation HealthVictoriaAustraliaData qualityData reportingData standardsDiagnosisPrimary health care

Identifiers

PMID38840250
PMCPMC11151573

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.