Validating epilepsy diagnoses in routinely collected data

Abstract

IntroductionPrimary healthcare records are used for studies within large data repositories. One of the limitations of using these routinely collected data for epilepsy research is the possibility of including incorrectly recorded diagnoses. To our knowledge, the accuracy of UK GP diagnosis codes for epilepsy has only partially been validated.
 Objectives and ApproachWe aimed to validate the accuracy of case ascertainment algorithms in identifying people with epilepsy in routinely collected Welsh healthcare data.
 A reference population of 150 people with definite epilepsy and 150 people without epilepsy was ascertained from hospital records and linked to records held within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank in Wales. We used three different algorithms to identify the reference population: a) individuals with an epilepsy diagnosis code and two consecutive AED prescription codes; b) individuals with an epilepsy diagnosis code only; c) individuals with two consecutive AED prescription codes only.
 ResultsWe applied the algorithms to all patients and to adults and children separately. For all patients, combining diagnosis and AED prescription codes had a sensitivity of 84% (95% ci 77–90) and specificity of 98% (95–100) in identifying people with epilepsy; diagnosis codes alone had a sensitivity of 86% (80–91) and a specificity of 97% (92–99); and AED prescription codes alone achieved a sensitivity of 92% (70–83) and a specificity of 73% (65–80). Using AED codes only was more accurate in children, achieving a sensitivity of 88% (75–95) and specificity of 98% (88–100). This can be explained by the widespread use of AEDs for indications other than epilepsy in adults, which is not the case for children.
 Conclusion/ImplicationsGP epilepsy diagnosis and AED prescription codes can be used to identify people with epilepsy using anonymised healthcare records in Wales. In children using AED prescription codes alone is an accurate way to identify epilepsy cases. These results are generalizable to other studies that use UK primary care records.

Switching the manufacturer of antiepileptic drugs is associated with higher risk of seizures: A nationwide study of prescription data in Germany

“…However, owing to the available data from the physicians’ file systems and notes, the study was not designed to validate ICD‐10 codes. Recent studies showed a higher positive predictive value and specificity for a combination of ICD codes and pharmaceutical data (≥1 AED) or general practitioners’ diagnoses and AED prescription than compared to ICD diagnoses alone . This was the case in our cohort, because the inclusion criteria required the ICD code G40.‐ and 2 AED prescriptions during the year before the index event.…”

Seizure frequency, healthcare resource utilisation and mortality in childhood epilepsy: a retrospective cohort study using the THIN database

“…Epilepsy was identified based on Read diagnosis codes used in a previous validation study8 and were reviewed by a clinician (RC)(online supplementary appendix). Another previous Wales-based study indicated that epilepsy diagnosis codes had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 97% 12. Seizure frequency was characterised by the presence of Additional Health Data or Read codes, whichever was present.…”

Big data in epilepsy: Clinical and research considerations. Report from the Epilepsy Big Data Task Force of the International League Against Epilepsy

“…Valid case definitions for epilepsy now exist for administrative health records 87 and EHRs. 88,89 Although the reported sensitivity and specificity are high (>80%-85%), 87,88 these are often context-specific, and their utility should be quantified when used in different datasets. 90 Likewise, outcome measures, if not validated, can lead to spurious conclusions.…”