Validity of Health Administrative Database Definitions for Hypertension: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND

Health administrative data are frequently used for hypertension surveillance. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the commonly used hypertension case definition of 2 physician outpatient claims within a 2-year period or 1 hospital discharge abstract record.

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE (from 1946) and EMBASE (from 1947) for relevant studies through September 2016 (keywords: "hypertension," "administrative databases," "validation studies"). Data with standardized forms and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies criteria were reviewed by 2 reviewers. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using a generalized linear-model approach to random-effects bivariate regression meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 1732 abstracts, among which 3 articles were deemed relevant. One of the articles incorporated 2 studies with differing reference standards and study populations; thus, we considered each separately. The quality scores of the retained studies ranged from 10-12 of a maximum 14. The sensitivity of the definition investigated to identify hypertension using administrative health databases was 71.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.3-73.7) and the specificity was 94.5% (95% CI, 93.2-95.6) when compared with surveys or medical records.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 physician outpatient claims within a 2-year period or 1 hospital discharge abstract record hypertension case definition accurately classifies individuals as hypertensive in approximately 70% of cases and correctly identifies persons as nonhypertensive in approximately 95% of cases. This is likely sufficiently sensitive and specific for most research and surveillance purposes.