ArticleBMJ open2025
Development of a case definition for polycystic ovary syndrome using administrative health data: a validation study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and validate a polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) case definition using administrative health data sources.
designA validation study.
settingSecondary care centre outpatient gynaecology clinic in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
participants3951 electronic health records of women aged 18-45 years who presented to a gynaecology clinic in Calgary, Canada, between January 2014 and December 2019 were reviewed. We identified 180 patients with PCOS using the Rotterdam criteria. Participants were excluded if they were biologically male, pregnant at the time of the consultation, did not meet the date criteria or if their consultation note was missing. The chart data were connected to the Practitioner Claims and the Discharge Abstract Database by personal health number. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 68 case definitions for PCOS were estimated. Case definition performance was graded.
resultsOf the 68 case definitions tested, none had high validity. The best performing case definitions were: (1) ≥3 instances of International Classification of Diseases-9 code 256.4 (polycystic ovaries) with exclusion codes (sensitivity 23.89%, specificity 99.59%, PPV 74.14%, NPV 96.35%) and (2) 626.X (irregular menstruation), 704.1 (hirsutism) and ≥3 instances of code 256.4 with exclusion codes (sensitivity 2.78%, specificity 99.97%, PPV 83.33%, NPV 95.40%).
conclusionsWe identified several case definitions for PCOS of moderate validity with high PPV (>70%) for case ascertainment in PCOS research in jurisdictions with similar administrative health data. These case definitions are limited by low sensitivity, which should be considered when interpreting research findings.
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.