Cargando…
Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol
INTRODUCTION: Administrative healthcare databases are useful to investigate the epidemiology, health outcomes, quality indicators and healthcare utilisation concerning peptic ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding, but the databases need to be validated in order to be a reliable source for research. T...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5030614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011776 |
_version_ | 1782454709425012736 |
---|---|
author | Montedori, Alessandro Abraha, Iosief Chiatti, Carlos Cozzolino, Francesco Orso, Massimiliano Luchetta, Maria Laura Rimland, Joseph M Ambrosio, Giuseppe |
author_facet | Montedori, Alessandro Abraha, Iosief Chiatti, Carlos Cozzolino, Francesco Orso, Massimiliano Luchetta, Maria Laura Rimland, Joseph M Ambrosio, Giuseppe |
author_sort | Montedori, Alessandro |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Administrative healthcare databases are useful to investigate the epidemiology, health outcomes, quality indicators and healthcare utilisation concerning peptic ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding, but the databases need to be validated in order to be a reliable source for research. The aim of this protocol is to perform the first systematic review of studies reporting the validation of International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision and 10th version (ICD-9 and ICD-10) codes for peptic ulcer and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases will be searched, using appropriate search strategies. We will include validation studies that used administrative data to identify peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses or studies that evaluated the validity of peptic ulcer and upper gastrointestinal bleeding codes in administrative data. The following inclusion criteria will be used: (a) the presence of a reference standard case definition for the diseases of interest; (b) the presence of at least one test measure (eg, sensitivity, etc) and (c) the use of an administrative database as a source of data. Pairs of reviewers will independently abstract data using standardised forms and will evaluate quality using the checklist of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria. This systematic review protocol has been produced in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required given that this is a protocol for a systematic review. We will submit results of this study to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The results will serve as a guide for researchers validating administrative healthcare databases to determine appropriate case definitions for peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as to perform outcome research using administrative healthcare databases of these conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015029216. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5030614 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50306142016-10-04 Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol Montedori, Alessandro Abraha, Iosief Chiatti, Carlos Cozzolino, Francesco Orso, Massimiliano Luchetta, Maria Laura Rimland, Joseph M Ambrosio, Giuseppe BMJ Open Research Methods INTRODUCTION: Administrative healthcare databases are useful to investigate the epidemiology, health outcomes, quality indicators and healthcare utilisation concerning peptic ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding, but the databases need to be validated in order to be a reliable source for research. The aim of this protocol is to perform the first systematic review of studies reporting the validation of International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision and 10th version (ICD-9 and ICD-10) codes for peptic ulcer and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases will be searched, using appropriate search strategies. We will include validation studies that used administrative data to identify peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses or studies that evaluated the validity of peptic ulcer and upper gastrointestinal bleeding codes in administrative data. The following inclusion criteria will be used: (a) the presence of a reference standard case definition for the diseases of interest; (b) the presence of at least one test measure (eg, sensitivity, etc) and (c) the use of an administrative database as a source of data. Pairs of reviewers will independently abstract data using standardised forms and will evaluate quality using the checklist of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria. This systematic review protocol has been produced in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required given that this is a protocol for a systematic review. We will submit results of this study to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The results will serve as a guide for researchers validating administrative healthcare databases to determine appropriate case definitions for peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as to perform outcome research using administrative healthcare databases of these conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015029216. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5030614/ /pubmed/27633635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011776 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ 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 and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Research Methods Montedori, Alessandro Abraha, Iosief Chiatti, Carlos Cozzolino, Francesco Orso, Massimiliano Luchetta, Maria Laura Rimland, Joseph M Ambrosio, Giuseppe Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol |
title | Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol |
title_full | Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol |
title_fullStr | Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol |
title_short | Validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol |
title_sort | validity of peptic ulcer disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnoses in administrative databases: a systematic review protocol |
topic | Research Methods |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5030614/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27633635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011776 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT montedorialessandro validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol AT abrahaiosief validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol AT chiatticarlos validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol AT cozzolinofrancesco validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol AT orsomassimiliano validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol AT luchettamarialaura validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol AT rimlandjosephm validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol AT ambrosiogiuseppe validityofpepticulcerdiseaseanduppergastrointestinalbleedingdiagnosesinadministrativedatabasesasystematicreviewprotocol |