Dataset Information

Identifying Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism cases using routinely collected healthcare data: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Population-based, prospective studies can provide important insights into Parkinson's disease (PD) and other parkinsonian disorders. Participant follow-up in such studies is often achieved through linkage to routinely collected healthcare datasets. We systematically reviewed the published literature on the accuracy of these datasets for this purpose.

Methods

We searched four electronic databases for published studies that compared PD and parkinsonism cases identified using routinely collected data to a reference standard. We extracted study characteristics and two accuracy measures: positive predictive value (PPV) and/or sensitivity.

Results

We identified 18 articles, resulting in 27 measures of PPV and 14 of sensitivity. For PD, PPV ranged from 56-90% in hospital datasets, 53-87% in prescription datasets, 81-90% in primary care datasets and was 67% in mortality datasets. Combining diagnostic and medication codes increased PPV. For parkinsonism, PPV ranged from 36-88% in hospital datasets, 40-74% in prescription datasets, and was 94% in mortality datasets. Sensitivity ranged from 15-73% in single datasets for PD and 43-63% in single datasets for parkinsonism.

Conclusions

In many settings, routinely collected datasets generate good PPVs and reasonable sensitivities for identifying PD and parkinsonism cases. However, given the wide range of identified accuracy estimates, we recommend cohorts conduct their own context-specific validation studies if existing evidence is lacking. Further research is warranted to investigate primary care and medication datasets, and to develop algorithms that balance a high PPV with acceptable sensitivity.

SUBMITTER: Harding Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6354966 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAscertainment of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in cardiovascular trials is costly and complex, involving processes that could be streamlined by using routinely collected healthcare data (RCD). The utility of coded RCD for HF outcome ascertainment in randomized trials requires assessment. We systematically reviewed studies assessing RCD-based HF outcome ascertainment against "gold standard" (GS) methods to study the feasibility of using such methods in clinical trials.MethodsStudies assessing International Classification of Disease (ICD) coded RCD-based HF outcome ascertainment against GS methods and reporting at least one agreement statistic were identified by searching MEDLINE and Embase from inception to May 2021. Data on study characteristics, details of RCD and GS data sources and definitions, and test statistics were reviewed. Summary sensitivities and specificities for studies ascertaining acute and prevalent HF were estimated using a bivariate random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves.ResultsA total of 58 studies of 48,643 GS-adjudicated HF events were included in this review. Strategies used to improve case identification included the use of broader coding definitions, combining multiple data sources, and using machine learning algorithms to search free text data, but these methods were not always successful and at times reduced specificity in individual studies. Meta-analysis of 17 acute HF studies showed that RCD algorithms have high specificity (96.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 91.5-98.3), but lacked sensitivity (63.5%, 95% CI 51.3-74.1) with similar results for 21 prevalent HF studies. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies.ConclusionsRCD can correctly identify HF outcomes but may miss approximately one-third of events. Methods used to improve case identification should also focus on minimizing false positives.

Project description:Introduction: Achieving equity in health care remains a challenge for health care systems worldwide and marked inequities in access and quality of care persist. Identifying health care equity indicators is an important first step in integrating the concept of equity into assessments of health care system performance, particularly in emergency care. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of administrative data-derived health care equity indicators and their association with socioeconomic determinants of health (SEDH) in emergency care settings. Following PRISMA-Equity reporting guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were indicators of health care equity and the associated SEDH they examine. Results: Among 29 studies identified, 14 equity indicators were identified and grouped into four categories that reflect the patient emergency care pathway. Total emergency department (ED) visits and ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related ED visits were the two most frequently used equity indicators. The studies analyzed equity based on seven SEDH: social deprivation, income, education level, social class, insurance coverage, health literacy, and financial and nonfinancial barriers. Despite some conflicting results, all identified SEDH are associated with inequalities in access to and use of emergency care. Conclusion: The use of administrative data-derived indicators in combination with identified SEDH could improve the measurement of health care equity in emergency care settings across health care systems worldwide. Using a combination of indicators is likely to lead to a more comprehensive, well-rounded measurement of health care equity than using any one indicator in isolation. Although studies analyzed focused on emergency care settings, it seems possible to extrapolate these indicators to measure equity in other areas of the health care system. Further studies elucidating root causes of health inequities in and outside the health care system are needed.