BACKGROUND: Asthma imposes a heavy and expensive burden on individuals and populations. A population-based surveillance and research program based on health administrative data could measure and study the burden of asthma; however, the validity of a health administrative data diagnosis of asthma must first be confirmed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of population-based provincial health administrative data in identifying adult patients with asthma for ongoing surveillance and research. METHODS: Patients from randomly selected primary care practices were assigned to four categories according to their previous diagnoses: asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, related respiratory conditions and nonasthma conditions. In each practice, 10 charts from each category were randomly selected, abstracted, then reviewed by a blinded expert panel who identified them as asthma or nonasthma. These reference standard diagnoses were then linked to the patients' provincial records and compared with health administrative algorithms designed to identify asthma. Analyses were performed using the concepts of diagnostic test evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 518 charts, including 160 from individuals with asthma, were reviewed. The algorithm of two or more ambulatory care visits and/or one or more hospitalization(s) for asthma in two years had a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI 77.1% to 89.1%) and a specificity of 76.5% (95% CI 71.8% to 80.8%). CONCLUSION: Definitions of adult asthma using health administrative data are sensitive and specific for identifying adults with asthma. Using these definitions, cohorts of adults with asthma for ongoing population-based surveillance and research can be developed.
BACKGROUND:Asthma imposes a heavy and expensive burden on individuals and populations. A population-based surveillance and research program based on health administrative data could measure and study the burden of asthma; however, the validity of a health administrative data diagnosis of asthma must first be confirmed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of population-based provincial health administrative data in identifying adult patients with asthma for ongoing surveillance and research. METHODS:Patients from randomly selected primary care practices were assigned to four categories according to their previous diagnoses: asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, related respiratory conditions and nonasthma conditions. In each practice, 10 charts from each category were randomly selected, abstracted, then reviewed by a blinded expert panel who identified them as asthma or nonasthma. These reference standard diagnoses were then linked to the patients' provincial records and compared with health administrative algorithms designed to identify asthma. Analyses were performed using the concepts of diagnostic test evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 518 charts, including 160 from individuals with asthma, were reviewed. The algorithm of two or more ambulatory care visits and/or one or more hospitalization(s) for asthma in two years had a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI 77.1% to 89.1%) and a specificity of 76.5% (95% CI 71.8% to 80.8%). CONCLUSION: Definitions of adult asthma using health administrative data are sensitive and specific for identifying adults with asthma. Using these definitions, cohorts of adults with asthma for ongoing population-based surveillance and research can be developed.
Authors: Teresa To; Sharon Dell; Paul T Dick; Lisa Cicutto; Jennifer K Harris; Ian B MacLusky; Marjan Tassoudji Journal: Pediatr Allergy Immunol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 6.377
Authors: Catherine Lemière; Tony Bai; Meyer Balter; Charles Bayliff; Allan Becker; Louis-Philippe Boulet; Dennis Bowie; André Cartier; Andrew Cave; Kenneth Chapman; Robert Cowie; Stephen Coyle; Donald Cockcroft; Francine M Ducharme; Pierre Ernst; Shelagh Finlayson; J Mark FitzGerald; Frederick E Hargreave; Donna Hogg; Alan Kaplan; Harold Kim; Cheryle Kelm; Paul O'Byrne; Malcolm Sears; Andrea White Markham Journal: Can Respir J Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.409
Authors: Gabriele Di Lorenzo; Pasquale Mansueto; Maria Esposito-Pellitteri; Vito Ditta; Francesco Castello; Claudia Lo Bianco; Maria Stefania Leto-Barone; Gaetana Di Fede; Marcello Traverso; Giuseppe Rotolo; Sergio Vigneri; Giovambattista Rini Journal: Respir Med Date: 2007-03-13 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Michelle Greiver; Jan Barnsley; Richard H Glazier; Rahim Moineddin; Bart J Harvey Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Ryan Ng; Claire E Kendall; Ann N Burchell; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Mona R Loutfy; Janet Raboud; Richard H Glazier; Sean Rourke; Tony Antoniou Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2016-05-25
Authors: Luke Mondor; Colleen J Maxwell; Susan E Bronskill; Andrea Gruneir; Walter P Wodchis Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: D R Vinson; J E Morley; J Huang; V Liu; M L Anderson; C E Drenten; R P Radecki; D K Nishijima; M E Reed Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Clare L Atzema; Peter C Austin; Bing Yu; Michael J Schull; Cynthia A Jackevicius; Noah M Ivers; Paula A Rochon; Douglas S Lee Journal: CMAJ Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Kyle R Kirkham; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Ciara Pendrith; Ryan Ng; Jack V Tu; Andreas Laupacis; Michael J Schull; Wendy Levinson; R Sacha Bhatia Journal: CMAJ Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Maryam Oskoui; Pamela Ng; Marc Dorais; Nicole Pigeon; Louise Koclas; Céline Lamarre; Francine Malouin; Carol L Richards; Michael Shevell; Lawrence Joseph Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-07-18
Authors: Andrea S Gershon; Hannah Chung; Joan Porter; Michael A Campitelli; Sarah A Buchan; Kevin L Schwartz; Natasha S Crowcroft; Aaron Campigotto; Jonathan B Gubbay; Timothy Karnauchow; Kevin Katz; Allison J McGeer; J Dayre McNally; David C Richardson; Susan E Richardson; Laura C Rosella; Andrew E Simor; Marek Smieja; George Zahariadis; Jeffrey C Kwong Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 5.226