Cargando…

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records

OBJECTIVES: Health administrative data are frequently used for diabetes surveillance. We aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a commonly-used diabetes case definition (two physician claims or one hospital discharge abstract record within a two-year period) and their potential effect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leong, Aaron, Dasgupta, Kaberi, Bernatsky, Sasha, Lacaille, Diane, Avina-Zubieta, Antonio, Rahme, Elham
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3793995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24130696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075256
_version_ 1782287159696293888
author Leong, Aaron
Dasgupta, Kaberi
Bernatsky, Sasha
Lacaille, Diane
Avina-Zubieta, Antonio
Rahme, Elham
author_facet Leong, Aaron
Dasgupta, Kaberi
Bernatsky, Sasha
Lacaille, Diane
Avina-Zubieta, Antonio
Rahme, Elham
author_sort Leong, Aaron
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Health administrative data are frequently used for diabetes surveillance. We aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a commonly-used diabetes case definition (two physician claims or one hospital discharge abstract record within a two-year period) and their potential effect on prevalence estimation. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched Medline (from 1950) and Embase (from 1980) databases for validation studies through August 2012 (keywords: “diabetes mellitus”; “administrative databases”; “validation studies”). Reviewers abstracted data with standardized forms and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria. A generalized linear model approach to random-effects bivariate regression meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates. We applied correction factors derived from pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates to prevalence estimates from national surveillance reports and projected prevalence estimates over 10 years (to 2018). RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1423 abstracts among which 11 studies were deemed relevant and reviewed; 6 of these reported sensitivity and specificity allowing pooling in a meta-analysis. Compared to surveys or medical records, sensitivity was 82.3% (95%CI 75.8, 87.4) and specificity was 97.9% (95%CI 96.5, 98.8). The diabetes case definition underestimated prevalence when it was ≤10.6% and overestimated prevalence otherwise. CONCLUSION: The diabetes case definition examined misses up to one fifth of diabetes cases and wrongly identifies diabetes in approximately 2% of the population. This may be sufficiently sensitive and specific for surveillance purposes, in particular monitoring prevalence trends. Applying correction factors to adjust prevalence estimates from this definition may be helpful to increase accuracy of estimates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3793995
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37939952013-10-15 Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records Leong, Aaron Dasgupta, Kaberi Bernatsky, Sasha Lacaille, Diane Avina-Zubieta, Antonio Rahme, Elham PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: Health administrative data are frequently used for diabetes surveillance. We aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a commonly-used diabetes case definition (two physician claims or one hospital discharge abstract record within a two-year period) and their potential effect on prevalence estimation. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched Medline (from 1950) and Embase (from 1980) databases for validation studies through August 2012 (keywords: “diabetes mellitus”; “administrative databases”; “validation studies”). Reviewers abstracted data with standardized forms and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria. A generalized linear model approach to random-effects bivariate regression meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates. We applied correction factors derived from pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates to prevalence estimates from national surveillance reports and projected prevalence estimates over 10 years (to 2018). RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1423 abstracts among which 11 studies were deemed relevant and reviewed; 6 of these reported sensitivity and specificity allowing pooling in a meta-analysis. Compared to surveys or medical records, sensitivity was 82.3% (95%CI 75.8, 87.4) and specificity was 97.9% (95%CI 96.5, 98.8). The diabetes case definition underestimated prevalence when it was ≤10.6% and overestimated prevalence otherwise. CONCLUSION: The diabetes case definition examined misses up to one fifth of diabetes cases and wrongly identifies diabetes in approximately 2% of the population. This may be sufficiently sensitive and specific for surveillance purposes, in particular monitoring prevalence trends. Applying correction factors to adjust prevalence estimates from this definition may be helpful to increase accuracy of estimates. Public Library of Science 2013-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3793995/ /pubmed/24130696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075256 Text en © 2013 Leong et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Leong, Aaron
Dasgupta, Kaberi
Bernatsky, Sasha
Lacaille, Diane
Avina-Zubieta, Antonio
Rahme, Elham
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records
title Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records
title_full Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records
title_fullStr Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records
title_short Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records
title_sort systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies on a diabetes case definition from health administrative records
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3793995/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24130696
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075256
work_keys_str_mv AT leongaaron systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofvalidationstudiesonadiabetescasedefinitionfromhealthadministrativerecords
AT dasguptakaberi systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofvalidationstudiesonadiabetescasedefinitionfromhealthadministrativerecords
AT bernatskysasha systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofvalidationstudiesonadiabetescasedefinitionfromhealthadministrativerecords
AT lacaillediane systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofvalidationstudiesonadiabetescasedefinitionfromhealthadministrativerecords
AT avinazubietaantonio systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofvalidationstudiesonadiabetescasedefinitionfromhealthadministrativerecords
AT rahmeelham systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofvalidationstudiesonadiabetescasedefinitionfromhealthadministrativerecords