ArticleBMJ open2025
Development and validation of a case identification algorithm for hand trauma patients using health administrative data and the epidemiology of hand trauma in a universal healthcare system.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur primary objectives were (1) to develop and validate an administrative data algorithm for the identification of hand trauma cases using clinical diagnoses documented in medical records as the reference standard and (2) to estimate the incidence of hand trauma in a universal public healthcare system from 1993 to 2023 using a population-based research cohort constructed using a validated case identification algorithm.
designA population-based retrospective validation study.
settingOntario, Canada, from 2022 to 2023 (validation) and from 1993 to 2023 (estimation).
participantsOur reference standard was the known hand trauma status of 301 patients (N=147 with hand trauma) who presented to an urban tertiary-care hand trauma centre in Toronto, Ontario. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the optimal algorithm to identify hand trauma using provincial health administrative data and (2) age-standardised and sex-standardised incidence rates of hand trauma among men and women, by age, and by area of patient residence.
resultsThe optimal algorithm had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 66.6% to 81.0%), specificity of 80.1% (95% CI 73.8% to 86.5%), positive predictive value of 78.1% (95% CI 71.2% to 85.0%) and negative predictive value of 76.1% (95% CI 69.5% to 82.7%). Over the study period, the age-standardised and sex-standardised incidence of hand trauma increased from 384 to 530 per 100 000. The greatest increase was observed in males and individuals aged 0-19 and 80+, with higher incidence rates in Southern compared with Northern Ontario.
conclusionsOur algorithm enabled identification of hand trauma cases using health administrative data suitable for population-level surveillance and health services research, revealing a rising burden of hand trauma from 1993 to 2023. These findings can support improved surveillance, resource allocation and care delivery for this public health problem.
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.