4.6 Review

The validity of administrative data to identify hip fractures is high-a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 66, 期 3, 页码 278-285

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.004

关键词

Osteoporosis; Fractures; Administrative data; Diagnostic algorithms; Validity; Systematic review

资金

  1. Canadian Arthritis Network
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine the validity of the diagnostic algorithms for osteoporosis and fractures in administrative data. Study Design and Setting: A systematic search was conducted to identify studies that reported the validity of a diagnostic algorithm for osteoporosis and/or fractures using administrative data. Results: Twelve studies were reviewed. The validity of the diagnosis of osteoporosis in administrative data was fair when at least 3 years of data from hospital and physician visit claims were used (area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC] = 0.70) or when pharmacy data were used (with or without the use of hospital and physician visit claims data, AUC > 0.70). Nonetheless, the positive predictive values (PPVs) were low (<0.60). There was good evidence to support the use of hospital data to identify hip fractures (sensitivity: 69-97%; PPV: 63-96%) and the addition of physician claims diagnostic and procedural codes to hospitalization diagnostic codes improved these characteristics (sensitivity: 83-97%; PPV: 86-98%). Vertebral fractures were difficult to identify using administrative data. There was some evidence to support the use of administrative data to define other fractures that do not require hospitalization. Conclusions: Administrative data can be used to identify hip fractures. Existing diagnostic algorithms to identify osteoporosis and vertebral fractures in administrative data are suboptimal. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据