Cargando…
Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases
BACKGROUND: Administrative data are frequently used to study cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). Little is known about the validity of case-finding definitions (CFDs, eg, disease classification codes/algorithms) designed to identify HDP in admin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423835/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37567603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2022-002151 |
_version_ | 1785089536414449664 |
---|---|
author | Johnston, Amy Dancey, Sonia R Tseung, Victrine Skidmore, Becky Tanuseputro, Peter Smith, Graeme N Coutinho, Thais Edwards, Jodi D |
author_facet | Johnston, Amy Dancey, Sonia R Tseung, Victrine Skidmore, Becky Tanuseputro, Peter Smith, Graeme N Coutinho, Thais Edwards, Jodi D |
author_sort | Johnston, Amy |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Administrative data are frequently used to study cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). Little is known about the validity of case-finding definitions (CFDs, eg, disease classification codes/algorithms) designed to identify HDP in administrative databases. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and grey literature sources for eligible studies. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility and extracted data. Quality of reporting was assessed using checklists; risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool, adapted for administrative studies. Findings were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included; most (62%) validated CFDs for a variety of maternal and/or neonatal outcomes. Six studies (24%) reported reference standard definitions for all HDP definitions validated; seven reported all 2×2 table values for ≥1 CFD or they were calculable. Most CFDs (n=83; 58%) identified HDP with high specificity (ie, ≥98%); however, sensitivity varied widely (3%–100%). CFDs validated for any maternal hypertensive disorder had the highest median sensitivity (91%, range: 15%–97%). Quality of reporting was generally poor, and all studies were at unclear or high risk of bias on ≥1 QUADAS-2 domain. CONCLUSIONS: Even validated CFDs are subject to bias. Researchers should choose the CFD(s) that best align with their research objective, while considering the relative importance of high sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and/or positive predictive value, and important characteristics of the validation studies from which they were derived (eg, study prevalence of HDP, spectrum of disease studied, methodological rigour, quality of reporting and risk of bias). Higher quality validation studies on this topic are urgently needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021239113. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10423835 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104238352023-08-15 Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases Johnston, Amy Dancey, Sonia R Tseung, Victrine Skidmore, Becky Tanuseputro, Peter Smith, Graeme N Coutinho, Thais Edwards, Jodi D Open Heart Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention BACKGROUND: Administrative data are frequently used to study cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP). Little is known about the validity of case-finding definitions (CFDs, eg, disease classification codes/algorithms) designed to identify HDP in administrative databases. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and grey literature sources for eligible studies. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility and extracted data. Quality of reporting was assessed using checklists; risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool, adapted for administrative studies. Findings were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included; most (62%) validated CFDs for a variety of maternal and/or neonatal outcomes. Six studies (24%) reported reference standard definitions for all HDP definitions validated; seven reported all 2×2 table values for ≥1 CFD or they were calculable. Most CFDs (n=83; 58%) identified HDP with high specificity (ie, ≥98%); however, sensitivity varied widely (3%–100%). CFDs validated for any maternal hypertensive disorder had the highest median sensitivity (91%, range: 15%–97%). Quality of reporting was generally poor, and all studies were at unclear or high risk of bias on ≥1 QUADAS-2 domain. CONCLUSIONS: Even validated CFDs are subject to bias. Researchers should choose the CFD(s) that best align with their research objective, while considering the relative importance of high sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and/or positive predictive value, and important characteristics of the validation studies from which they were derived (eg, study prevalence of HDP, spectrum of disease studied, methodological rigour, quality of reporting and risk of bias). Higher quality validation studies on this topic are urgently needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021239113. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-08-10 /pmc/articles/PMC10423835/ /pubmed/37567603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2022-002151 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention Johnston, Amy Dancey, Sonia R Tseung, Victrine Skidmore, Becky Tanuseputro, Peter Smith, Graeme N Coutinho, Thais Edwards, Jodi D Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases |
title | Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases |
title_full | Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases |
title_fullStr | Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases |
title_short | Systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases |
title_sort | systematic review of validated case definitions to identify hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in administrative healthcare databases |
topic | Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10423835/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37567603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2022-002151 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT johnstonamy systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases AT danceysoniar systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases AT tseungvictrine systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases AT skidmorebecky systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases AT tanuseputropeter systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases AT smithgraemen systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases AT coutinhothais systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases AT edwardsjodid systematicreviewofvalidatedcasedefinitionstoidentifyhypertensivedisordersofpregnancyinadministrativehealthcaredatabases |