Ragna Elise Støre Govatsmark1,2, Imre Janszky1,3, Stig Arild Slørdahl2,4, Marta Ebbing5, Rune Wiseth6,7, Bjørnar Grenne6,7, Elisabeth Vesterbekkmo6, Kaare Harald Bønaa2,6,7,8. 1. Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 2. Department of Medical Quality Registers, St Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Norway. 3. Regional Center for Health Care Improvement, St Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Norway. 4. The Central Norway Regional Health Authority, Norway. 5. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. 6. Clinic for Heart Disease, St Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Norway. 7. Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 8. Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø-The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Abstract
Aims: Health registers are used for administrative purposes, disease surveillance, quality assessment, and research. The value of the registers is entirely dependent on the quality of their data. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the completeness and correctness of the acute myocardial infarction (AMI) diagnosis in the Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register and in the Norwegian Patient Register. Methods: All Norwegian patients admitted directly to St Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital from 1 July to 31 December 2012 and who had plasma levels of cardiac troponin T measured during their hospitalization (n=4835 unique individuals, n=5882 hospitalizations) were identified in the hospital biochemical database. A gold standard for AMI was established by evaluation of maximum troponin T levels and by review of the information in the medical records. Cases of AMI in the registers were classified as true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative according to the gold standard. We calculated sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: The Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register had a sensitivity of 86.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.8-89.3%), PPV of 97.9% (96.4-99.3%), and specificity of 99.9% and NPV of 98.9% (98.6-99.2%) (99.8-100%). The corresponding figures for the Norwegian Patient Register were 85.8% (95% CI 82.5-89.1%), 95.1% (92.9-97.2%), and 99.7% (99.5-99.8%) and 98.9% (98.6-99.2%), respectively. Both registers had a sensitivity higher than 95% when compared to hospital discharge diagnoses. The results were similar for men and women and for cases below and above 80 years of age. Conclusions: The Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register and the Norwegian Patient Register are adequately complete and correct for administrative purposes, disease surveillance, quality assessment, and research.
Aims: Health registers are used for administrative purposes, disease surveillance, quality assessment, and research. The value of the registers is entirely dependent on the quality of their data. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the completeness and correctness of the acute myocardial infarction (AMI) diagnosis in the Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register and in the Norwegian Patient Register. Methods: All Norwegian patients admitted directly to St Olavs hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital from 1 July to 31 December 2012 and who had plasma levels of cardiac troponin T measured during their hospitalization (n=4835 unique individuals, n=5882 hospitalizations) were identified in the hospital biochemical database. A gold standard for AMI was established by evaluation of maximum troponin T levels and by review of the information in the medical records. Cases of AMI in the registers were classified as true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative according to the gold standard. We calculated sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: The Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register had a sensitivity of 86.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.8-89.3%), PPV of 97.9% (96.4-99.3%), and specificity of 99.9% and NPV of 98.9% (98.6-99.2%) (99.8-100%). The corresponding figures for the Norwegian Patient Register were 85.8% (95% CI 82.5-89.1%), 95.1% (92.9-97.2%), and 99.7% (99.5-99.8%) and 98.9% (98.6-99.2%), respectively. Both registers had a sensitivity higher than 95% when compared to hospital discharge diagnoses. The results were similar for men and women and for cases below and above 80 years of age. Conclusions: The Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Register and the Norwegian Patient Register are adequately complete and correct for administrative purposes, disease surveillance, quality assessment, and research.
Entities:
Keywords:
Completeness; administrative register; correctness; data quality; health register; hospital discharge register; medical quality register; myocardial infarction; validity
Authors: Tora Hellgren; Mai Blöndal; Jarle Jortveit; Tamas Ferenci; Jonas Faxén; Christian Lewinter; Jaan Eha; Piret Lõiveke; Toomas Marandi; Tiia Ainla; Aet Saar; Gudrun Veldre; Péter Andréka; Sigrun Halvorsen; András Jánosi; Robert Edfors Journal: Eur Heart J Open Date: 2022-07-02
Authors: Abhijit Sen; Ioannis Vardaxis; Bo Henry Lindqvist; Ben Michael Brumpton; Linn Beate Strand; Inger Johanne Bakken; Lars Johan Vatten; Pål Richard Romundstad; Rickard Ljung; Kenneth Jay Mukamal; Imre Janszky Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Maria C Magnus; Abigail Fraser; Janet W Rich-Edwards; Per Magnus; Deborah A Lawlor; Siri E Håberg Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 12.434
Authors: Mari Nordbø Gynnild; Steven H J Hageman; Jannick A N Dorresteijn; Olav Spigset; Stian Lydersen; Torgeir Wethal; Ingvild Saltvedt; Frank L J Visseren; Hanne Ellekjær Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-09-17 Impact factor: 4.790