Literature DB >> 20458577

Validation of a case definition for osteoporosis disease surveillance.

W D Leslie1, L M Lix, M S Yogendran.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: A simple case definition for osteoporosis case diagnosis is feasible based upon administrative health data. This may facilitate implementation of a population-based osteoporosis surveillance program, providing information that could help to inform and guide screening, prevention, and treatment resources.
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to construct and validate a simplified algorithm for osteoporosis case ascertainment from administrative databases that would be suitable for disease surveillance.
METHODS: Multiple classification rules were applied to different sets of hospital diagnosis, physician claims diagnosis, and prescription drug variables from Manitoba, Canada. Algorithms were validated against results from a regional bone mineral density testing program that identified bone mineral density (BMD) measurements in 4,015 women age 50 years and older with at least one BMD test between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2001.
RESULTS: Sensitivity as high as 93.3% was achieved with 3 years of data. Specificity ranged from 50.8% to 91.4% overall, and from 81.2% to 99.1% for discriminating osteoporotic from normal BMD. Sensitivity and overall accuracy were generally lower for algorithms based on diagnosis codes alone than for algorithms that included osteoporosis prescriptions. In the subgroup without prior osteoporotic fractures or chronic corticosteroid use, one simple algorithm (one hospital diagnosis, physician claims diagnosis, or osteoporosis prescription within 1 year) gave accuracy measures exceeding 90% for discriminating osteoporosis from normal BMD across a wide range of disease prevalence.
CONCLUSIONS: A relatively simple case definition for osteoporosis surveillance based upon administrative health data can achieve an acceptable level of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Performance is enhanced when the case definition includes osteoporosis medication use in the formulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20458577     DOI: 10.1007/s00198-010-1225-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Osteoporos Int        ISSN: 0937-941X            Impact factor:   4.507


  40 in total

1.  Recalculation of the NHANES database SD improves T-score agreement and reduces osteoporosis prevalence.

Authors:  Neil Binkley; Gary M Kiebzak; E Michael Lewiecki; Diane Krueger; Ronald E Gangnon; Paul D Miller; John A Shepherd; Marc K Drezner
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2004-11-16       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  The influence of osteoporotic fractures on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling men and women across Canada.

Authors:  J D Adachi; G Loannidis; C Berger; L Joseph; A Papaioannou; L Pickard; E A Papadimitropoulos; W Hopman; S Poliquin; J C Prior; D A Hanley; W P Olszynski; T Anastassiades; J P Brown; T Murray; S A Jackson; A Tenenhouse
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Current and projected rates of hip fracture in Canada.

Authors:  E A Papadimitropoulos; P C Coyte; R G Josse; C E Greenwood
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  The impact of hip subregion reference data on osteoporosis diagnosis.

Authors:  William D Leslie; Patricia A Caetano; E Bruce Roe
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2005-06-04       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Age- and gender-specific rate of fractures in Australia: a population-based study.

Authors:  K M Sanders; E Seeman; A M Ugoni; J A Pasco; T J Martin; B Skoric; G C Nicholson; M A Kotowicz
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Estimated prevalence of osteoporosis from a Nationwide Health Insurance database in Taiwan.

Authors:  Nan-Ping Yang; Chung-Yeh Deng; Yiing-Jenq Chou; Po-Quang Chen; Ching-Heng Lin; Pesus Chou; Hong-Jen Chang
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2005-06-08       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Classification of osteoporosis based on bone mineral densities.

Authors:  Y Lu; H K Genant; J Shepherd; S Zhao; A Mathur; T P Fuerst; S R Cummings
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.741

8.  Mortality after osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  O Johnell; J A Kanis; A Odén; I Sernbo; I Redlund-Johnell; C Petterson; C De Laet; B Jönsson
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2003-10-30       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  The importance of spectrum bias on bone density monitoring in clinical practice.

Authors:  William D Leslie
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2006-03-13       Impact factor: 4.398

10.  Validation of diagnostic codes within medical services claims.

Authors:  Machelle Wilchesky; Robyn M Tamblyn; Allen Huang
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  24 in total

1.  Comparative Safety and Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Zoledronic Acid in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Cohort Study.

Authors:  Nam-Kyong Choi; Daniel H Solomon; Theodore N Tsacogianis; Joan E Landon; Hong Ji Song; Seoyoung C Kim
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 6.741

2.  Automating case definitions using literature-based reasoning.

Authors:  T Botsis; R Ball
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2013-10-30       Impact factor: 2.342

3.  Use of administrative data for national surveillance of osteoporosis and related fractures in Canada: results from a feasibility study.

Authors:  S O'Donnell
Journal:  Arch Osteoporos       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 2.617

4.  Performance of comorbidity measures for predicting outcomes in population-based osteoporosis cohorts.

Authors:  L M Lix; J Quail; G Teare; B Acan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and the risk of non-vertebral osteoporotic fractures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 50 years and over.

Authors:  J-P Roussy; L Bessette; S Bernatsky; E Rahme; J Lachaine
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-03-16       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Elevated fracture risk for adults with neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Authors:  Daniel G Whitney; Michelle S Caird; Karl J Jepsen; Neil S Kamdar; Christina N Marsack-Topolewski; Edward A Hurvitz; Mark D Peterson
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 4.398

7.  Identifying patients with osteoporosis or at risk for osteoporotic fractures.

Authors:  Yong Chen; Leslie R Harrold; Robert A Yood; Terry S Field; Becky A Briesacher
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 2.229

8.  Clinical factors associated with mood affective disorders among adults with cerebral palsy.

Authors:  Daniel G Whitney; Seth A Warschausky; Daniel Whibley; Anna Kratz; Susan L Murphy; Edward A Hurvitz; Mark D Peterson
Journal:  Neurol Clin Pract       Date:  2020-06

9.  Osteoporosis-related fracture case definitions for population-based administrative data.

Authors:  Lisa M Lix; Mahmoud Azimaee; Beliz Acan Osman; Patricia Caetano; Suzanne Morin; Colleen Metge; David Goltzman; Nancy Kreiger; Jerilynn Prior; William D Leslie
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-05-18       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Validity of the RAI-MDS for ascertaining diabetes and comorbid conditions in long-term care facility residents.

Authors:  Lisa M Lix; Lin Yan; David Blackburn; Nianping Hu; Verena Schneider-Lindner; Gary F Teare
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.