ArticleClinical epidemiology2024
Validity of a Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Diagnosis in Adult Patients in the Danish National Patient Register.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence for the Detection of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy From Standard Electrocardiogram.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the positive predictive value (PPV) of the diagnostic codes for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) in the Danish National Patient Register (DNPR) and identify factors affecting the PPV. Patients and Methods: We randomly sampled 200 patients registered in DNPR with the diagnostic codes DI421 (obstructive) or DI422 (non-obstructive) HCM, from Eastern Denmark, between December 1 Results: Of the 200 patients, seven were excluded; six were younger than 18 years when initially diagnosed and one adult patient had requested that their medical records be unavailable for research purposes. Of the 193 patients (median age 61 years, Interquartile range (IQR) 50-70, 40% female) with medical records available for assessment, 148 (77%) patients were registered correctly, 41 (21%) were incorrectly registered and for four (2%) patients there was insufficient data to determine if the diagnosis was correct. The overall PPV was 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.82). The PPV for patients diagnosed in dedicated centers for inherited cardiac diseases was 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.95). For patients diagnosed in a dedicated center for inherited cardiac diseases with more than one clinical visit, the PPV increased to 0.99 (95% CI 0.93-1), however with the risk of a reduced sensitivity as these patients constituted only 52% of the correctly registered patients. Conclusion: The overall PPV of the HCM diagnostic codes in the DNPR was 0.77 (95% CI 0.70-0.82). The validity of the diagnosis was higher at dedicated centers for inherited cardiac diseases. These findings may prove useful for future register-based research.
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.