Validation of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnosis in computerized medical records in primary health care

Abstract

BackgroundComputerized Clinical Records, which are incorporated in primary health care practice, have great potential for research. In order to use this information, data quality and reliability must be assessed to prevent compromising the validity of the results.The aim of this study is to validate the diagnosis of hypertension and diabetes mellitus in the computerized clinical records of primary health care, taking the diagnosis criteria established in the most prominently used clinical guidelines as the gold standard against which what measure the sensitivity, specificity, and determine the predictive values.The gold standard for diabetes mellitus was the diagnostic criteria established in 2003 American Diabetes Association Consensus Statement for diabetic subjects. The gold standard for hypertension was the diagnostic criteria established in the Joint National Committee published in 2003.MethodsA cross-sectional multicentre validation study of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnoses in computerized clinical records of primary health care was carried out. Diagnostic criteria from the most prominently clinical practice guidelines were considered for standard reference.Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and global agreement (with kappa index), were calculated. Results were shown overall and stratified by sex and age groups.ResultsThe agreement for diabetes mellitus with the reference standard as determined by the guideline was almost perfect (κ = 0.990), with a sensitivity of 99.53%, a specificity of 99.49%, a positive predictive value of 91.23% and a negative predictive value of 99.98%.Hypertension diagnosis showed substantial agreement with the reference standard as determined by the guideline (κ = 0.778), the sensitivity was 85.22%, the specificity 96.95%, the positive predictive value 85.24%, and the negative predictive value was 96.95%. Sensitivity results were worse in patients who also had diabetes and in those aged 70 years or over.ConclusionsOur results substantiate the validity of using diagnoses of diabetes and hypertension found within the computerized clinical records for epidemiologic studies.

Validation of the Diagnostic Algorithms for 5 Chronic Conditions in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN): A Kingston Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) Report

“…For instance, de Burgos-Lunar et al 21 conducted a validation study of diabetes mellitus and hypertension diagnoses in primary health care electronic records and found that both sensitivity and specificity were 99.5% for diabetes and were 85% and 97%, respectively, for hypertension. These results are consistent with our findings (100% sensitivity and 99% specificity for diabetes; 83% sensitivity and 98% specificity for hypertension).…”

Disparities in Electronic Health Record Patient Portal Use in Nephrology Clinics

“…Insurance status was categorized as private, Medicare, medical assistance/ Medicaid, or self-pay. Comorbidities were determined on the basis of their presence on the patient's problem list, as a billing diagnosis on two outpatient encounters, or active use of a specified medication (Supplemental Table 1) (7,37,(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47). The university-affiliated health system mandates that providers enter all prescriptions electronically and maintain an up-to-date medication list.…”

“…HTN was identified on the basis of two outpatient billing diagnoses, a problem list diagnosis, or the use of an antihypertensive medication (37)(38)(39)(41)(42)(43)(44). For patients with a diagnosis of HTN, all recorded office BP values from the cohort period were abstracted from the EHR.…”

Supervivencia de pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca en atención primaria

“…Las bases de datos clínico-administrativas como la historia electrónica de AP, que ha demostrado validez para realizar estudios epidemiológicos y de utilización de servicios de salud 4,26,27 , pueden ser un instrumento útil para llevar a cabo estudios comunitarios con pacientes ambulatorios con IC. No obstante, es una fuente de información que junto con la naturaleza observacional del estudio implica asumir diversos sesgos.…”