Jessica Widdifield1, Noah M Ivers2, Jacqueline Young3, Diane Green3, Liisa Jaakkimainen4, Debra A Butt5, Paul O'Connor6, Simon Hollands3, Karen Tu7. 1. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Jessica.widdifield@utoronto.ca. 2. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada/ Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada/Department of Family and Community Medicine, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada/ Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada/Department of Family and Community Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Scarborough Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada/Department of Neurology, Saint Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES), Toronto, Ontario, Canada/Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada/University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital Family Health Team, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the accuracy of administrative data for identifying multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. OBJECTIVES: To validate administrative data algorithms for MS, and describe the burden and epidemiology over time in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We employed a validated search strategy to identify all MS patients within electronic medical records, to identify patients with and without MS (reference standard). We then developed and validated different combinations of administrative data for algorithms. The most accurate algorithm was used to estimate the burden and epidemiology of MS over time. RESULTS: The accuracy of the algorithm of one hospitalisation or five physician billings over 2 years provided both high sensitivity (84%) and positive predictive value (86%). Application of this algorithm to provincial data demonstrated an increasing cumulative burden of MS, from 13,326 patients (0.14%) in 2000 to 24,647 patients in 2010 (0.22%). Age-and-sex standardised prevalence increased from 133.9 to 207.3 MS patients per 100,000 persons in the population, from 2000 - 2010. During this same period, age-and-sex-standardised incidence varied from 17.9 to 19.4 patients per 100,000 persons. CONCLUSIONS: MS patients can be accurately identified from administrative data. Our findings illustrated a rising prevalence of MS over time. MS incidence rates also appear to be rising since 2009.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the accuracy of administrative data for identifying multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. OBJECTIVES: To validate administrative data algorithms for MS, and describe the burden and epidemiology over time in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We employed a validated search strategy to identify all MS patients within electronic medical records, to identify patients with and without MS (reference standard). We then developed and validated different combinations of administrative data for algorithms. The most accurate algorithm was used to estimate the burden and epidemiology of MS over time. RESULTS: The accuracy of the algorithm of one hospitalisation or five physician billings over 2 years provided both high sensitivity (84%) and positive predictive value (86%). Application of this algorithm to provincial data demonstrated an increasing cumulative burden of MS, from 13,326 patients (0.14%) in 2000 to 24,647 patients in 2010 (0.22%). Age-and-sex standardised prevalence increased from 133.9 to 207.3 MS patients per 100,000 persons in the population, from 2000 - 2010. During this same period, age-and-sex-standardised incidence varied from 17.9 to 19.4 patients per 100,000 persons. CONCLUSIONS: MS patients can be accurately identified from administrative data. Our findings illustrated a rising prevalence of MS over time. MS incidence rates also appear to be rising since 2009.
Authors: Alpha Oumar Diallo; Asha Krishnaswamy; Stuart K Shapira; Matthew E Oster; Mary G George; Jenna C Adams; Elizabeth R Walker; Paul Weiss; Mohammed K Ali; Wendy Book Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Anthony McKnight; Simone N Vigod; Cindy-Lee Dennis; Susitha Wanigaratne; Hilary K Brown Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Daiana Bezzini; L Policardo; F Profili; G Meucci; M Ulivelli; S Bartalini; P Francesconi; M A Battaglia Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: Hong Chen; Jeffrey C Kwong; Ray Copes; Paul J Villeneuve; Mark S Goldberg; Sherry L Ally; Scott Weichenthal; Aaron van Donkelaar; Michael Jerrett; Randall V Martin; Jeffrey R Brook; Alexander Kopp; Richard T Burnett Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Dalia L Rotstein; Ruth Ann Marrie; Colleen Maxwell; Sima Gandhi; Susan E Schultz; Kinwah Fung; Karen Tu Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Nana Amankwah; Ruth Ann Marrie; Christina Bancej; Rochelle Garner; Douglas G Manuel; Ron Wall; Philippe Finès; Julie Bernier; Karen Tu; Kim Reimer Journal: Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.240