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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnston, Amy, Dancey, Sonia R, Tseung, Victrine, Skidmore, Becky, Tanuseputro, Peter, Smith, Graeme N, Coutinho, Thais, Edwards, Jodi D
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