Suppr超能文献

英格兰常规收集的医院入院数据中记录的痴呆症与初级保健中记录的痴呆症的比较。

Comparison of dementia recorded in routinely collected hospital admission data in England with dementia recorded in primary care.

作者信息

Brown Anna, Kirichek Oksana, Balkwill Angela, Reeves Gillian, Beral Valerie, Sudlow Cathie, Gallacher John, Green Jane

机构信息

Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF UK.

Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2016 Oct 28;13:11. doi: 10.1186/s12982-016-0053-z. eCollection 2016.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Electronic linkage of UK cohorts to routinely collected National Health Service (NHS) records provides virtually complete follow-up for cause-specific hospital admissions and deaths. The reliability of dementia diagnoses recorded in NHS hospital data is not well documented.

METHODS

For a sample of Million Women Study participants in England we compared dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital data (Hospital Episode Statistics: HES) with dementia recorded in two separate sources of primary care information: a primary care database [Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), n = 340] and a survey of study participants' General Practitioners (GPs, n = 244).

RESULTS

Dementia recorded in HES fully agreed both with CPRD and with GP survey data for 85% of women; it did not agree for 1 and 4%, respectively. Agreement was uncertain for the remaining 14 and 11%, respectively; and among those classified as having uncertain agreement in CPRD, non-specific terms compatible with dementia, such as 'memory loss', were recorded in the CPRD database for 79% of the women. Agreement was significantly better (p < 0.05 for all comparisons) for women with HES diagnoses for Alzheimer's disease (95 and 94% agreement with any dementia for CPRD and GP survey, respectively) and for vascular dementia (88 and 88%, respectively) than for women with a record only of dementia not otherwise specified (70 and 72%, respectively). Dementia in the same woman was first mentioned an average 1.6 (SD 2.6) years earlier in primary care (CPRD) than in hospital (HES) data. Age-specific rates for dementia based on the hospital admission data were lower than the rates based on the primary care data, but were similar if the delay in recording in HES was taken into account.

CONCLUSIONS

Dementia recorded in routinely collected NHS hospital admission data for women in England agrees well with primary care records of dementia assessed separately from two different sources, and is sufficiently reliable for epidemiological research.

摘要

背景

将英国队列与常规收集的国民医疗服务体系(NHS)记录进行电子链接,可为特定病因的住院和死亡情况提供几乎完整的随访。NHS医院数据中记录的痴呆症诊断的可靠性尚无充分文献记载。

方法

对于英格兰百万女性研究的参与者样本,我们将常规收集的NHS医院数据(医院事件统计:HES)中记录的痴呆症与两个独立的初级保健信息来源中记录的痴呆症进行了比较:一个初级保健数据库[临床实践研究数据链(CPRD),n = 340]和一项对研究参与者的全科医生(GP,n = 244)的调查。

结果

HES中记录的痴呆症与CPRD以及全科医生调查数据在85%的女性中完全一致;分别有1%和4%的情况不一致。其余14%和11%的一致性情况不确定;在CPRD中被归类为一致性不确定的女性中,有79%的女性在CPRD数据库中记录了与痴呆症相符的非特定术语,如“记忆力减退”。与仅记录未另作说明的痴呆症的女性相比,HES诊断为阿尔茨海默病的女性(与CPRD和全科医生调查中任何痴呆症的一致性分别为95%和94%)以及血管性痴呆的女性(分别为88%和88%)的一致性明显更好(所有比较p < 0.05)。同一名女性的痴呆症在初级保健(CPRD)中首次提及的时间比在医院(HES)数据中平均早1.6(标准差2.6)年。基于医院入院数据的特定年龄痴呆症发病率低于基于初级保健数据的发病率,但如果考虑到HES记录的延迟,则两者相似。

结论

英格兰女性常规收集的NHS医院入院数据中记录的痴呆症与从两个不同来源分别评估的痴呆症初级保健记录吻合良好,对于流行病学研究而言足够可靠。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f51d/5084368/8de79e25f269/12982_2016_53_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验