Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24682186›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Validity of myocardial infarction diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review.

Natalie McCormick, Diane Lacaille, Vidula Bhole, J Antonio Avina-Zubieta

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 149 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

149 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

89 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Natalie McCormickFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Arthritis Research Centre of Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
Diane LacailleArthritis Research Centre of Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Co-chair, Cardiovascular Committee of the CANRAD Network, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
Vidula BholeArthritis Research Centre of Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
J Antonio Avina-ZubietaArthritis Research Centre of Canada, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada; Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Co-chair, Cardiovascular Committee of the CANRAD Network, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThough administrative databases are increasingly being used for research related to myocardial infarction (MI), the validity of MI diagnoses in these databases has never been synthesized on a large scale.

objectiveTo conduct the first systematic review of studies reporting on the validity of diagnostic codes for identifying MI in administrative data.

methodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched (inception to November 2010) for studies: (a) Using administrative data to identify MI; or (b) Evaluating the validity of MI codes in administrative data; and (c) Reporting validation statistics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, or Kappa scores) for MI, or data sufficient for their calculation. Additonal articles were located by handsearch (up to February 2011) of original papers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers; article quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.

resultsThirty studies published from 1984-2010 were included; most assessed codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9th revision. Sensitivity and specificity of hospitalization data for identifying MI in most [≥50%] studies was ≥86%, and PPV in most studies was ≥93%. The PPV was higher in the more-recent studies, and lower when criteria that do not incorporate cardiac troponin levels (such as the MONICA) were employed as the gold standard. MI as a cause-of-death on death certificates also demonstrated lower accuracy, with maximum PPV of 60% (for definite MI).

conclusionsHospitalization data has higher validity and hence can be used to identify MI, but the accuracy of MI as a cause-of-death on death certificates is suboptimal, and more studies are needed on the validity of ICD-10 codes. When using administrative data for research purposes, authors should recognize these factors and avoid using vital statistics data if hospitalization data is not available to confirm deaths from MI.

Indexed as

AdultAgedClinical CodingDatabases, FactualDeath CertificatesHospitalizationHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24682186
PMCPMC3969323

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.