INTRODUCTION: National discharge registers are important and cost-effective data sources for administrative and research purposes, but their value depends much on the validity of the registered data. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of heart failure (HF) diagnoses (ICD10: I50.0-I50.9) in the Danish National Patient Register (DNPR). METHODS: We reviewed medical records from a random sample of 500 patients with either a primary or a secondary discharge diagnosis of HF registered in the DNPR from any department in Northern Denmark in 2007. We noted symptoms, objective signs, diagnostic imaging and biomarkers and used the European Society of Cardiology definition of HF to categorise patients into definite, probable or non- verified HF. RESULTS: We classified 305 patients as having definite HF and 113 patients as having probable HF. The remaining cases were classified as non-verified HF. Thus, the positive predictive value (PPV) for definite and probable HF was 83.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 80.1-86.7%). The PPV increased to 88.0% (95% CI: 84.4-91.0%) when we restricted analyses to primary diagnoses and to 95.2% (95% CI: 89.2-98.4%) when we restricted analyses to HF diagnoses established at cardiology units. CONCLUSIONS: The HF diagnoses (I50.0-I50.9) in the DNPR should be used with caution if validation is not possible. However, restricting analyses to patients registered with a primary diagnosis of HF or patients discharged from cardiology units may be a useful alternative in population-based studies. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant. Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
INTRODUCTION: National discharge registers are important and cost-effective data sources for administrative and research purposes, but their value depends much on the validity of the registered data. The objective of this study was to assess the validity of heart failure (HF) diagnoses (ICD10: I50.0-I50.9) in the Danish National Patient Register (DNPR). METHODS: We reviewed medical records from a random sample of 500 patients with either a primary or a secondary discharge diagnosis of HF registered in the DNPR from any department in Northern Denmark in 2007. We noted symptoms, objective signs, diagnostic imaging and biomarkers and used the European Society of Cardiology definition of HF to categorise patients into definite, probable or non- verified HF. RESULTS: We classified 305 patients as having definite HF and 113 patients as having probable HF. The remaining cases were classified as non-verified HF. Thus, the positive predictive value (PPV) for definite and probable HF was 83.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 80.1-86.7%). The PPV increased to 88.0% (95% CI: 84.4-91.0%) when we restricted analyses to primary diagnoses and to 95.2% (95% CI: 89.2-98.4%) when we restricted analyses to HF diagnoses established at cardiology units. CONCLUSIONS: The HF diagnoses (I50.0-I50.9) in the DNPR should be used with caution if validation is not possible. However, restricting analyses to patients registered with a primary diagnosis of HF or patients discharged from cardiology units may be a useful alternative in population-based studies. FUNDING: none. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant. Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Authors: Agnieszka Kapłon-Cieślicka; Karolina Kupczyńska; Piotr Dobrowolski; Błażej Michalski; Miłosz J Jaguszewski; Waldemar Banasiak; Paweł Burchardt; Łukasz Chrzanowski; Szymon Darocha; Justyna Domienik-Karłowicz; Jarosław Drożdż; Marcin Fijałkowski; Krzysztof J Filipiak; Marcin Gruchała; Ewa A Jankowska; Piotr Jankowski; Jarosław D Kasprzak; Wojciech Kosmala; Piotr Lipiec; Przemysław Mitkowski; Katarzyna Mizia-Stec; Piotr Szymański; Agnieszka Tycińska; Wojciech Wańha; Maciej Wybraniec; Adam Witkowski; Piotr Ponikowski; On Behalf Of "Club 30" Of The Polish Cardiac Society Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 2.737
Authors: Abdulrahman N Shams-Eldin; Adelina Yafasova; Mikkel Faurschou; Morten Schou; Guoli Sun; Gunnar H Gislason; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Emil L Fosbøl; Lars Køber; Jawad H Butt Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 3.650
Authors: I H Heiberg; R Nesvåg; L Balteskard; J G Bramness; C M Hultman; Ø Naess; T Reichborn-Kjennerud; E Ystrom; B K Jacobsen; A Høye Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2020-02-29 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: I H Heiberg; B K Jacobsen; L Balteskard; J G Bramness; Ø Naess; E Ystrom; T Reichborn-Kjennerud; C M Hultman; R Nesvåg; A Høye Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 6.392
Authors: Morten Malmborg; Michelle D S Schmiegelow; Caroline H Nørgaard; Anders Munch; Thomas Gerds; Morten Schou; Caroline Kistorp; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Mark A Hlatky; Gunnar Gislason Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Annette de Thurah; Ina Trolle Andersen; Andreas Bugge Tinggaard; Anders Hammerich Riis; Josephine Therkildsen; Hans Erik Bøtker; Morthen Bøttcher; Ellen-Margrethe Hauge Journal: RMD Open Date: 2020-01
Authors: Matti A Vuori; Jaakko Reinikainen; Stefan Söderberg; Ellinor Bergdahl; Pekka Jousilahti; Hugh Tunstall-Pedoe; Tanja Zeller; Dirk Westermann; Susana Sans; Allan Linneberg; Licia Iacoviello; Simona Costanzo; Veikko Salomaa; Stefan Blankenberg; Kari Kuulasmaa; Teemu J Niiranen Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 9.951