Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Diabet Med. 2010 May;27(5):491-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02920.x.
To conduct a systematic review to identify types and implications of incorrect or incomplete coding or classification within diabetes or between diabetes and other conditions; also to determine the availability of evidence regarding frequency of occurrence.
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms were used to search relevant electronic databases for papers published to the end of August 2008. Two researchers independently reviewed titles and abstracts and, subsequently, the full text of potential papers. Reference lists of selected papers were also reviewed and authors consulted. Three reviewers independently extracted data.
Seventeen eligible studies were identified, including five concerned with distinguishing between Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes. Evidence was also identified regarding: the distinction between diabetes and no-diabetes, failure to specify type of diabetes, and diagnostic errors or difficulties involving maturity-onset diabetes of the young, latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, pancreatic diabetes, persistence of foetal haemoglobin and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). The sample was too heterogeneous to derive accurate information about frequency, but our findings suggested that misclassification occurs most commonly in young people. Implications relating to treatment options and risk management were highlighted, in addition to psychological and financial implications and the potential impact on the validity of quality of care evaluations and research.
This review draws attention to the occurrence and implications of incorrect or incomplete coding or classification of diabetes, particularly in young people. A pragmatic and clinically relevant approach to classification is needed to assist those involved in making decisions about types of diabetes.
进行系统评价,以确定糖尿病或糖尿病与其他疾病之间不正确或不完整的编码或分类的类型及其影响;同时确定关于发生频率的证据的可用性。
使用医学主题词(MeSH)和自由文本术语搜索相关电子数据库,以获取截至 2008 年 8 月底发表的论文。两名研究人员独立审查标题和摘要,然后审查潜在论文的全文。还审查了选定论文的参考文献,并咨询了作者。三位评审员独立提取数据。
确定了 17 项合格的研究,其中 5 项涉及区分 1 型和 2 型糖尿病。还确定了有关以下方面的证据:糖尿病与非糖尿病之间的区别、未能指定糖尿病类型、以及涉及青少年发病的成年型糖尿病、成人隐匿性自身免疫性糖尿病、胰腺性糖尿病、胎儿血红蛋白持续存在和获得性免疫缺陷综合征(AIDS)的诊断错误或困难。由于样本过于异质,无法获得有关频率的准确信息,但我们的研究结果表明,错误分类最常见于年轻人。除了心理和经济影响以及对护理质量评估和研究有效性的潜在影响外,还强调了与治疗选择和风险管理相关的影响。
本综述提请注意糖尿病不正确或不完整的编码或分类的发生和影响,特别是在年轻人中。需要一种实用且具有临床相关性的分类方法,以帮助那些参与决定糖尿病类型的人。