ReviewClinical epidemiology2024
Cardiovascular Data Quality in the Danish National Patient Registry (1977-2024): A Systematic Review.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality of cancer-related data from the Danish National patient registry (1994-2025) and the Danish cancer registry (2004-2025): a systematic review.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- SARS-CoV-2 infection and long-term risk of cardiovascular and renal morbidity.European heart journal open · 2026Article
- Risk of Cancer After a Hospital Contact for Dyspnea: A Nationwide Danish Cohort Study.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Regional Electronic Health Records in Denmark: Research Potential for Clinical Epidemiology.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Review
- Classification of Inpatient and Outpatient Contacts in the Danish National Patient Register: Epidemiological Implications and Future Directions.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Validity of Amyloidosis in the Danish National Patient Registry.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Cardioprotective glucose-lowering drugs, statins, and risk of first-time atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in Denmark: a nationwide cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Venous thromboembolism and cancer risk in patients with a history of migraine: a population-based cohort study.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025Article
- Cardiotoxicity in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia following anthracycline-containing chemotherapy: A population-based matched cohort study.British journal of haematology · 2025Article
- Comparative cardiovascular effectiveness of newer glucose-lowering drugs in elderly with type 2 diabetes: a target trial emulation cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Aortic Root Replacement Procedures: A Validation Study of the Western Denmark Heart Registry from 1999 to 2022.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.