Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39678522›Full record

ReviewClinical epidemiology2024

Cardiovascular Data Quality in the Danish National Patient Registry (1977-2024): A Systematic Review.

Katrine Hjuler Lund, Cecilia Hvitfeldt Fuglsang, Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, Morten Schmidt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

4 authors.

Katrine Hjuler LundDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0009-0008-1932-4757
Cecilia Hvitfeldt FuglsangDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2789-5003
Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir SchmidtDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-5527-0698
Morten SchmidtDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4935-4059

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The increasing use of routinely collected health data for research puts great demands on data quality. The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) is renowned for its longitudinal data registration since 1977 and is a commonly used data source for cardiovascular epidemiology. Objective: To provide an overview and examine determinants of the cardiovascular data quality in the DNPR. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Danish Medical Journal, and identified papers validating cardiovascular variables in the DNPR during 1977-2024. We also included papers from reference lists, citations, journal e-mail notifications, and colleagues. Measures of data quality included the positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Results: We screened 2,049 papers to identify 63 relevant papers, including a total of 229 cardiovascular variables. Of these, 200 variables assessed diagnoses, 24 assessed treatments (10 surgeries and 14 other treatments), and 5 assessed examinations. The data quality varied substantially between variables. Overall, the PPV was ≥90% for 36% of variables, 80-89% for 26%, 70-79% for 16%, 60-69% for 7%, 50-59% for 4%, and <50% for 11% of variables. The predictive value was generally higher for treatments (PPV≥95% for 92%) and examinations (PPV≥95% for 100%) than for diagnoses (PPV≥80% for 71%). Moreover, the PPV varied for individual diagnoses depending on the algorithm used to identify them. Key determinants for validity were patient contact type (inpatient vs outpatient), diagnosis type (primary vs secondary), setting (university vs regional hospitals), and calendar year. Conclusion: The validity of cardiovascular variables in the DNPR is high for treatments and examinations but varies considerably between individual diagnoses depending on the algorithm used to define them.

Indexed as

cardiovascular diseasesepidemiological methodsmedical record linkageregistriesvalidation studies

Identifiers

PMID39678522
PMCPMC11645903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.