ArticlePragmatic and observational research2026
Validity of Using Prescription Medications to Classify Disease - A Retrospective Observational Study Using Routinely Collected Electronic Health Records from the UK.
Article in Pragmatic and observational research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Epidemiological studies rely on valid classifications of patients' disease status. However, in the absence of perfect information on every patients' health status, researchers use proxy information with variable and often unknown validity. Methods: To investigate the validity of using prescription records for disease classification, we conducted a retrospective observational study on a UK-wide database of medical prescriptions and clinical records (Optimum Patient Care Research Database). We used electronic health records of 25,000 randomly selected patients for each year between 2004 and 2020 (total N=425,000) and compared disease classification of 18 different chronic conditions based on clinical records for a period of three years (gold standard) with disease classification based on prescription records for the same period. We then used logistic regression to analyse if positive and negative predicted values (PPV and NPV) were associated with known predictors of disease. Results: Results showed large variations in PPV ranging from 8% (heart failure) to 94% (all type diabetes) and smaller variations in NPV ranging from 96% (anxiety) to 100% (Type 1 diabetes). Age, sex, ethnicity, and year but not socio-economic status were associated with variations in validity, especially in classifying dementia, diabetes, and depression. Discussion: Varying validity can partly be explained by different (stratum-specific) prevalence of disease. Additionally, conditions like heart failure can be treated with medication that can also be prescribed for other conditions or can be treated without medication. However, varying validity can also be attributed to imperfect clinical records, which we used as gold standard. As a consequence of low validity, the apparent prevalence based on using prescription records was between 1.3 times lower (all-type diabetes) and up-to 11 times higher (heart failure) than the true prevalence based on the clinical records. Conclusion: Studies using prescription data to classify disease status run a substantial risk of misclassification bias.
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.