Danish medical journal · 2017
Accuracy of angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome in the Danish National Patient Register.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bork Christian Sørensen, Al-Zuhairi Karam Sadoon, Hansen Steen Møller, Delekta Joanna, Joensen Albert Marni
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The Danish National Patient Register (DNPR)is widely used for research and administrative purposes. However, its usability is highly dependent of the validity of the registered data. We therefore aimed to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the DNPR.
METHODS: We selected a random sample of 500 patients registered with angina pectoris and a random sample of 500 patients registered with ACS among all hospitalisations at any department in Northern Denmark between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2007. We reviewed the medical records of the sample patients and recorded whether the angina pectoris and the ACS diagnoses were valid, based on the European Society of Cardiology criteria.
RESULTS: The PPV of definite and probable angina pectoris was 45.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 41.3-50.6%), whereas the PPV of verified ACS was 86.6% (95% CI: 83.3-89.5%). Stratification by hospital department revealed significantly higher PPVs for diagnoses received in a cardiology unit for both angina pectoris (61.7%; 95% CI: 53.4-69.6%) and ACS (95.5%; 95% CI: 91.3-98.0%). Stratification by gender showed a significantly higher PPV among men registered with angina pectoris (51.2%; 95% CI: 45.3-57.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: The angina pectoris and ACS data contained in the DNPR should be used with caution in register studies if validation is not possible. Restricting analyses of ACS data to patients discharged from cardiology wards may be a useful option in register-based studies.
FUNDING: none.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.
METHODS: We selected a random sample of 500 patients registered with angina pectoris and a random sample of 500 patients registered with ACS among all hospitalisations at any department in Northern Denmark between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2007. We reviewed the medical records of the sample patients and recorded whether the angina pectoris and the ACS diagnoses were valid, based on the European Society of Cardiology criteria.
RESULTS: The PPV of definite and probable angina pectoris was 45.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 41.3-50.6%), whereas the PPV of verified ACS was 86.6% (95% CI: 83.3-89.5%). Stratification by hospital department revealed significantly higher PPVs for diagnoses received in a cardiology unit for both angina pectoris (61.7%; 95% CI: 53.4-69.6%) and ACS (95.5%; 95% CI: 91.3-98.0%). Stratification by gender showed a significantly higher PPV among men registered with angina pectoris (51.2%; 95% CI: 45.3-57.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: The angina pectoris and ACS data contained in the DNPR should be used with caution in register studies if validation is not possible. Restricting analyses of ACS data to patients discharged from cardiology wards may be a useful option in register-based studies.
FUNDING: none.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.