Dataset Information

Validity of estimated prevalence of decreased kidney function and renal replacement therapy from primary care electronic health records compared with national survey and registry data in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anonymous primary care records are an important resource for observational studies. However, their external validity is unknown in identifying the prevalence of decreased kidney function and renal replacement therapy (RRT). We thus compared the prevalence of decreased kidney function and RRT in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) with a nationally representative survey and national registry.

Methods

Among all people ≥25 years of age registered in the CPRD for ≥1 year on 31 March 2014, we identified patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, according to their most recent serum creatinine in the past 5 years using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation and patients with recorded diagnoses of RRT. Denominators were the entire population in each age-sex band irrespective of creatinine measurement. The prevalence of eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 was compared with that in the Health Survey for England (HSE) 2009/2010 and the prevalence of RRT was compared with that in the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) 2014.

Results

We analysed 2 761 755 people in CPRD [mean age 53 (SD 17) years, men 49%], of whom 189 581 (6.86%) had an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 3293 (0.12%) were on RRT. The prevalence of eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in CPRD was similar to that in the HSE and the prevalence of RRT was close to that in the UKRR across all age groups in men and women, although the small number of younger patients with an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the HSE might have hampered precise comparison.

Conclusions

UK primary care data have good external validity for the prevalence of decreased kidney function and RRT.

SUBMITTER: Iwagami M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5410977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Norwegian Trauma Registry (NTR) is designed to monitor and improve the quality and outcome of trauma care delivered by Norwegian trauma hospitals. Patient care is evaluated through specific quality indicators, which are constructed of variables reported to the registry by certified registrars. Having high-quality data recorded in the registry is essential for the validity, trust and use of data. This study aims to perform a data quality check of a subset of core data elements in the registry by assessing agreement between data in the NTR and corresponding data in electronic patient records (EPRs).MethodsWe validated 49 of the 118 variables registered in the NTR by comparing those with the corresponding ones in electronic patient records for 180 patients with a trauma diagnosis admitted in 2019 at eight public hospitals. Agreement was quantified by calculating observed agreement, Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's first agreement coefficient (AC1) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 27 nominal variables, quadratic weighted Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's second agreement coefficient (AC2) for five ordinal variables. For nine continuous, one date and seven time variables, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsAlmost perfect agreement (AC1 /AC2/ ICC > 0.80) was observed for all examined variables. Nominal and ordinal variables showed Gwet's agreement coefficients ranging from 0.85 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91) to 1.00 (95% CI: 1.00-1.00). For continuous and time variables there were detected high values of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91) and 1.00 (CI 95%: 1.00-1.00). While missing values in both the NTR and EPRs were in general negligeable, we found a substantial amount of missing registrations for a continuous "Base excess" in the NTR. For some of the time variables missing values both in the NTR and EPRs were high.ConclusionAll tested variables in the Norwegian Trauma Registry displayed excellent agreement with the corresponding variables in electronic patient records. Variables in the registry that showed missing data need further examination.

Project description:Dietary intake assessment with diet records (DR) is a standard research and practice tool in nutrition. Manual entry and analysis of DR is time-consuming and expensive. New electronic tools for diet entry by clients and research participants may reduce the cost and effort of nutrient intake estimation.To determine the validity of electronic diet recording, we compared responses to 3-day DR kept by Tap & Track software for the Apple iPod Touch and records kept on the Nutrihand website to DR coded and analyzed by a research dietitian into a customized US Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient analysis program, entitled GRAND (Grand Forks Research Analysis of Nutrient Data).Adult participants (n=19) enrolled in a crossover-designed clinical trial. During each of two washout periods, participants kept a written 3-day DR. In addition, they were randomly assigned to enter their DR in a Web-based dietary analysis program (Nutrihand) or a handheld electronic device (Tap & Track). They completed an additional 3-day DR and the alternate electronic diet recording methods during the second washout. Entries resulted in 228 daily diet records or 12 for each of 19 participants. Means of nutrient intake were calculated for each method. Concordance of the intake estimates were determined by Bland-Altman plots. Coefficients of determination (R(2)) were calculated for each comparison to assess the strength of the linear relationship between methods.No significant differences were observed between the mean nutrient values for energy, carbohydrate, protein, fat, saturated fatty acids, total fiber, or sodium between the recorded DR analyzed in GRAND and either Nutrihand or Tap & Track, or for total sugars comparing GRAND and Tap & Track. Reported values for total sugars were significantly reduced (P<.05) comparing Nutrihand to GRAND. Coefficients of determination (R(2)) for Nutrihand and Tap & Track compared to DR entries into GRAND, respectively, were energy .56, .01; carbohydrate .58, .08; total fiber .65, .37; sugar .78, .41; protein .44, .03; fat .36, .03; saturated fatty acids .23, .03; sodium .20, .00; and for Nutrihand only for cholesterol .88; vitamin A .02; vitamin C .37; calcium .05; and iron .77. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrates high variability in individual responses for both electronic capture programs with higher 95% limits of agreement for dietary intake recorded on Tap & Track.In comparison to dietitian-entered 3-day DR, electronic methods resulted in no significant difference in mean nutrient estimates but exhibited larger variability, particularly the Tap & Track program. However, electronic DR provided mean estimates of energy, macronutrients, and some micronutrients, which approximated those of the dietitian-analyzed DR and may be appropriate for dietary monitoring of groups. Electronic diet assessment methods have the potential to reduce the cost and burden of DR analysis for nutrition research and clinical practice.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01183520; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01183520 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6VSdYznKX).

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.