ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2026
Can administrative data be used for a national register of hospitalised stroke patients? A New Zealand validation study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Using community-based incidence studies and clinical registries to assess stroke care and outcomes is resource intensive and often geographically limited. Linked administrative data are lower-cost and wider-reaching, but potentially less accurate and complete. This study compared administrative data to national hospital-based study data to assess whether administrative data represents a valid alternative. Methods: We linked and compared data from the REGIONS Care Study, a New Zealand nationwide observational study, with administrative data from Statistics New Zealand's Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and Cohen's kappa coefficient were used to assess case identification, risk factors, post-stroke outcomes, and interventions as applicable. Additional audits explored the validity of IDI 'true false positives.' Findings: From May to July 2018, 1719 patients with stroke were captured in REGIONS Care and 1833 in the IDI. Using REGIONS Care as the reference standard, the sensitivity of the IDI for stroke case identification was 83% and the positive predictive value 77%. There were 300 false-negatives and 414 false positives. The audit of two hospitals showed that some cases identified in IDI but excluded by REGIONS were actual strokes. For stroke risk factors, the IDI showed high sensitivity and specificity for diabetes (93% and 91%, respectively), atrial fibrillation (87% and 90%), and smoking (71% and 97%) but lower specificity for hypertension (61%), and dyslipidaemia (52%). A derived IDI favourable outcome measure showed good agreement with the modified Rankin Scale (sensitivity 88%, specificity 82%, kappa 0.67). The IDI accurately identified post-stroke medication use (sensitivities 81%-94%, specificities 78%-91%) and thrombectomy interventions (sensitivity 88%, kappa 0.91). Interpretation: The use of administrative data to ascertain stroke cases, risk factors, interventions and outcomes was feasible and compared well with manual hospital data collection making an administrative data based national stroke register possible, although supplementary data collection for comprehensive care evaluation may be required. Funding: The study was funded by the NZ Health Research Council (HRC 17/037).
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.