Endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism · 2020
Estimation of the prevalence of thyroid dysfunction in Catalonia through two different registries: Pharmaceutical dispensing and diagnostic registration.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Torrejón Sara, Vila Lluis, Soldevila Berta, Martín Montse, Puig-Domingo Manel
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Population studies on the prevalence of thyroid dysfunctions are costly. The pharmacy dispensing (PDR) and diagnosis (DR) registers allow us to study the epidemiology of these pathologies in a simpler way. Our aims: 1/Estimate the prevalence of thyroid dysfunction in Catalonia based on data from the PDR and the DR, 2/to evaluate the concordance of the results obtained by both strategies.
METHODS: The population studied was the one registered with the public health system in Catalonia(Catsalut). In the PDR analysis, the information obtained through the Pharmaceutical Provision file (during 2012, 2013, 2014) was used regarding the number of patients under treatment (NPT) (levothyroxine and antithyroid medication). The DR analysis (2014) was performed by ICD-9 codes (hyperthyroidism 242 and hypothyroidism 243, 244).
RESULTS: According to the NPT in the PDR analysis, the prevalence of treated hypothyroidism increased over 3 years: 2.81%(2012), 2.92%(2013) and 3.07%(2014) (P < .00001). The prevalence of hyperthyroidism in treatment was 0.14%(2012), 0.13%(2013) and 0.14%(2014). According to the DR analysis in 2014, the prevalence of hypothyroidism was 2.54% and 0.35% for hyperthyroidism. The PDR analysis estimated a higher hypothyroidism prevalence compared to that estimated by the DR (P < .0001) and vice versa in the case of hyperthyroidism.
CONCLUSION: Both PDR and DR prevalence estimations of thyroid dysfunction show some degree of discordance probably due to undercoding bias in the case of DR and the absence of subclinical pathology in the case of PDR. However, both approaches are valid and complementary for estimating the prevalence of thyroid dysfunction.
METHODS: The population studied was the one registered with the public health system in Catalonia(Catsalut). In the PDR analysis, the information obtained through the Pharmaceutical Provision file (during 2012, 2013, 2014) was used regarding the number of patients under treatment (NPT) (levothyroxine and antithyroid medication). The DR analysis (2014) was performed by ICD-9 codes (hyperthyroidism 242 and hypothyroidism 243, 244).
RESULTS: According to the NPT in the PDR analysis, the prevalence of treated hypothyroidism increased over 3 years: 2.81%(2012), 2.92%(2013) and 3.07%(2014) (P < .00001). The prevalence of hyperthyroidism in treatment was 0.14%(2012), 0.13%(2013) and 0.14%(2014). According to the DR analysis in 2014, the prevalence of hypothyroidism was 2.54% and 0.35% for hyperthyroidism. The PDR analysis estimated a higher hypothyroidism prevalence compared to that estimated by the DR (P < .0001) and vice versa in the case of hyperthyroidism.
CONCLUSION: Both PDR and DR prevalence estimations of thyroid dysfunction show some degree of discordance probably due to undercoding bias in the case of DR and the absence of subclinical pathology in the case of PDR. However, both approaches are valid and complementary for estimating the prevalence of thyroid dysfunction.