Dataset Information

Validity and completeness of colorectal cancer diagnoses in a primary care database in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To validate the recorded diagnoses of colorectal cancer (CRC) and identify false negatives in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database.

Methods

We conducted a validation study of incident CRC cases in THIN among patients aged 40-89 years from 2000-2011. CRC Read code entries (N = 3805) were verified by manual review of patients' electronic medical records (EMRs) including free-text comments. Incident CRC cases in THIN ascertained following manual review were validated against two data sources deemed gold standards: (i) questionnaires sent to primary care practitioners (PCPs; for a random sample of 100 potential CRC cases), and (ii) Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) among linked practices. False negatives in THIN were identified by searching for International Classification of Diseases-10 codes related to CRC in HES.

Results

Of 3805 CRC cases identified in THIN via Read codes, 3033 patients (80.0%) were considered definite cases after manual review of EMRs. The positive predictive value (PPV) of CRC Read codes was 86.0% after removing patients identified from THIN via a Read code for 'fast track referral for suspected CRC'. The response rate from PCPs was 87.0% (n = 87), and the PPV of CRC in THIN was 100% based on PCP questionnaires. Using HES, the PPV for CRC in THIN was 97.9% (556/568), and false negative rate was 6.1% (36/592).

Conclusions

CRC diagnostic Read codes in THIN have a high PPV, which is increased further following manual review of free-text comments. The false negative rate of CRC diagnoses in THIN is low.

SUBMITTER: Cea Soriano L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5054928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEpidemiological research on small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is limited and based on cancer registry data. We evaluated the feasibility and validity of using primary care electronic health records (The Health Improvement Network [THIN]) in the UK to identify and characterise SCLC.MethodsWe searched THIN records of individuals aged 18-89 years between 2000 and 2014 for a first diagnostic code suggestive of lung cancer (group 1) or small cell cancer (SCC; group 2) and for text strings among free text comments to identify and characterise incident SCLC cases. We validated our case identification strategy by manual review of patient EHRs, including free text comments, for a random sample of 400 individuals initially detected with a diagnostic code (300 from group 1 and 100 from group 2).ResultsTwenty five thousand two hundred fourty one individuals had a code for lung cancer (n = 24,508 [97.1%]) or SCC (733 [2.9%]). Following free-text searches, there were 3530 incident SCLC cases (2956 from group 1; 574 from group 2) corresponding to an incidence rate of 1.01 per 10,000 person-years. In the validation exercise, SCLC confirmation rates were 99% (group 1) and 85% (group 2). Mean age at diagnosis among confirmed cases was 68.5 years; staging information was present in 63.5% of cases of whom 17.8% had limited disease and 82.2% had extensive disease. The majority (84.5%) had a recorded symptom suggestive of lung cancer; chest infection was the most common (18%) followed by cough (15.8%) and chest/abdominal/back pain (15.2%). The first year crude mortality rates was 9.9 per 100 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-10.4), was higher among men and those aged 80 years and above. A total of 144 (37.8%) confirmed cases had metastases recorded. Median survival among the whole study cohort was 7.37 months.ConclusionsOur SCLC case identification method appears to be valid and could potentially be adapted to identify other cancer types. However, complete characterisation of staging requires information from additional data sources including cancer registries.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been a resurgence of tuberculosis worldwide, mainly in developing countries but also affecting the United Kingdom (UK), and other Western countries. The control of tuberculosis is dependent on early identification of cases and timely notification to public health departments to ensure appropriate treatment of cases and screening of contacts. Tuberculosis is compulsorily notifiable in the UK, and the doctor making or suspecting the diagnosis is legally responsible for notification. There is evidence of under-reporting of tuberculosis. This has implications for the control of tuberculosis as a disproportionate number of people who become infected are the most vulnerable in society, and are less likely to be identified and notified to the public health system. These include the poor, the homeless, refugees and ethnic minorities.MethodThis study was a critical literature review on completeness of tuberculosis notification within the UK National Health Service (NHS) context. The review also identified data sources associated with reporting completeness and assessed whether studies corrected for undercount using capture-recapture (CR) methodology. Studies were included if they assessed completeness of tuberculosis notification quantitatively. The outcome measure used was notification completeness expressed between 0% and 100% of a defined denominator, or in numbers not notified where the denominator was unknown.ResultsSeven studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified through electronic and manual search of published and unpublished literature. One study used CR methodology. Analysis of the seven studies showed that undernotification varied from 7% to 27% in studies that had a denominator; and 38%-49% extra cases were identified in studies which examined specific data sources like pathology reports or prescriptions for anti-tuberculosis drugs. Cases notified were more likely to have positive microbiology than cases not notified which were more likely to have positive histopathology or be surgical in-patients. Collation of prescription data of two or more anti-tuberculosis drugs increases case ascertainment of tuberculosis.ConclusionThe reporting of tuberculosis is incomplete in the UK, although notification is a statutory requirement. Undernotification leads to an underestimation of the disease burden and hinders implementation of appropriate prevention and control strategies. The notification system needs to be strengthened to include education and training of all sub-specialities involved in diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis.

Project description:Breast, lung and colorectal cancers constitute the most common cancers worldwide and their epidemiology, related health outcomes and quality indicators can be studied using administrative healthcare databases. To constitute a reliable source for research, administrative healthcare databases need to be validated. The aim of this protocol is to perform the first systematic review of studies reporting the validation of International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision codes to identify breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses in administrative healthcare databases.This review protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, using appropriate search strategies. We will include validation studies that used administrative data to identify breast, lung and colorectal cancer diagnoses or studies that evaluated the validity of breast, lung and colorectal cancer codes in administrative data. The following inclusion criteria will be used: (1) the presence of a reference standard case definition for the disease of interest; (2) the presence of at least one test measure (eg, sensitivity, positive predictive values, etc) and (3) the use of data source from an administrative database. Pairs of reviewers will independently abstract data using standardised forms and will assess quality using a checklist based on the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) criteria.Ethics approval is not required. We will submit results of this study to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. The results will serve as a guide to identify appropriate case definitions and algorithms of breast, lung and colorectal cancers for researchers involved in validating administrative healthcare databases as well as for outcome research on these conditions that used administrative healthcare databases.CRD42015026881.