Mie Micheelsen Jensen1, Stine Munk Hald1,2, Line Marie Buch Kristensen1, Nils Jensen Boe1,2, Frederik Severin Gråe Harbo3, David Gaist1,2,4. 1. Department of Neurology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 2. Neurology Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. Department of Radiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 4. Open Patient Data Explorative Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Danish registries could be an attractive resource for studies of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage (re-ICH). We developed and validated algorithms to identify re-ICH in the Danish Stroke Registry (DSR) and the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using multiple sources, we followed-up an inception cohort with verified first-ever spontaneous ICH (n = 2528) for their first re-ICH in 2009-2018 (study period). We used verified cases of re-ICH (n = 124) as the gold standard to assess the performance of register-based algorithms for identifying re-ICH. For each cohort member, we traced events of re-ICH (ICD-10-code I61) in the study period according to DSR and DNPR, respectively. For each registry, we tested algorithms with a blanking period (BP) - ie, a period immediately following the index ICH during which outcome events were ignored - of varying length (7 days-360 days). The algorithm with the shortest BP that returned a positive predictive value (PPV) of ≥80% was considered optimal. We also calculated negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity of each algorithm and [95% confidence intervals] for all proportions. RESULTS: The optimal algorithm for DSR (BP 30 days) had a PPV of 89.5% [82.2-94.0], NPV 98.8% [98.2-99.1], sensitivity 75.8% [67.6-82.5], and specificity 99.5% [99.2-99.7]. The optimal algorithm for DNPR (BP 120 days) had a PPV of 80.6% [71.7-87.2], NPV 98.1% [97.5-98.6], sensitivity 63.7% [55.0-71.6], and specificity 99.2% [98.8-99.5]. CONCLUSION: Simple algorithms accurately identified re-ICH in DSR and DNPR. Compared with DNPR, DSR achieved higher PPV and sensitivity with a shorter BP. The proposed algorithms could facilitate valid use of DSR and DNPR for studies of re-ICH.
PURPOSE: Danish registries could be an attractive resource for studies of recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage (re-ICH). We developed and validated algorithms to identify re-ICH in the Danish Stroke Registry (DSR) and the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using multiple sources, we followed-up an inception cohort with verified first-ever spontaneous ICH (n = 2528) for their first re-ICH in 2009-2018 (study period). We used verified cases of re-ICH (n = 124) as the gold standard to assess the performance of register-based algorithms for identifying re-ICH. For each cohort member, we traced events of re-ICH (ICD-10-code I61) in the study period according to DSR and DNPR, respectively. For each registry, we tested algorithms with a blanking period (BP) - ie, a period immediately following the index ICH during which outcome events were ignored - of varying length (7 days-360 days). The algorithm with the shortest BP that returned a positive predictive value (PPV) of ≥80% was considered optimal. We also calculated negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity of each algorithm and [95% confidence intervals] for all proportions. RESULTS: The optimal algorithm for DSR (BP 30 days) had a PPV of 89.5% [82.2-94.0], NPV 98.8% [98.2-99.1], sensitivity 75.8% [67.6-82.5], and specificity 99.5% [99.2-99.7]. The optimal algorithm for DNPR (BP 120 days) had a PPV of 80.6% [71.7-87.2], NPV 98.1% [97.5-98.6], sensitivity 63.7% [55.0-71.6], and specificity 99.2% [98.8-99.5]. CONCLUSION: Simple algorithms accurately identified re-ICH in DSR and DNPR. Compared with DNPR, DSR achieved higher PPV and sensitivity with a shorter BP. The proposed algorithms could facilitate valid use of DSR and DNPR for studies of re-ICH.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Lucía Cea Soriano; David Gaist; Montse Soriano-Gabarró; Luis A García Rodríguez Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2018-05-27 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Anders Sahlén; Christoph Varenhorst; Bo Lagerqvist; Henrik Renlund; Elmir Omerovic; David Erlinge; Lars Wallentin; Stefan K James; Tomas Jernberg Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Antonio González-Pérez; David Gaist; Mari-Ann Wallander; Gillian McFeat; Luis A García-Rodríguez Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Neshika Samarasekera; Arthur Fonville; Christine Lerpiniere; Andrew J Farrall; Joanna M Wardlaw; Philip M White; Colin Smith; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David Gaist; Stine Munk Hald; Luis Alberto García Rodríguez; Anne Clausen; Sören Möller; Jesper Hallas; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-10-03