Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Front Neurol ; 12: 787107, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35185750

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Stroke in UK Biobank (UKB) is ascertained via linkages to coded administrative datasets and self-report. We studied the accuracy of these codes using genetic validation. METHODS: We compiled stroke-specific and broad cerebrovascular disease (CVD) code lists (Read V2/V3, ICD-9/-10) for medical settings (hospital, death record, primary care) and self-report. Among 408,210 UKB participants, we identified all with a relevant code, creating 12 stroke definitions based on the code type and source. We performed genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for each definition, comparing summary results against the largest published stroke GWAS (MEGASTROKE), assessing genetic correlations, and replicating 32 stroke-associated loci. RESULTS: The stroke case numbers identified varied widely from 3,976 (primary care stroke-specific codes) to 19,449 (all codes, all sources). All 12 UKB stroke definitions were significantly correlated with the MEGASTROKE summary GWAS results (rg.81-1) and each other (rg.4-1). However, Bonferroni-corrected confidence intervals were wide, suggesting limited precision of some results. Six previously reported stroke-associated loci were replicated using ≥1 UKB stroke definition. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke case numbers in UKB depend on the code source and type used, with a 5-fold difference in the maximum case-sample size. All stroke definitions are significantly genetically correlated with the largest stroke GWAS to date.

2.
Neurology ; 95(6): e697-e707, 2020 08 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32616677

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: In UK Biobank (UKB), a large population-based prospective study, cases of many diseases are ascertained through linkage to routinely collected, coded national health datasets. We assessed the accuracy of these for identifying incident strokes. METHODS: In a regional UKB subpopulation (n = 17,249), we identified all participants with ≥1 code signifying a first stroke after recruitment (incident stroke-coded cases) in linked hospital admission, primary care, or death record data. Stroke physicians reviewed their full electronic patient records (EPRs) and generated reference standard diagnoses. We evaluated the number and proportion of cases that were true-positives (i.e., positive predictive value [PPV]) for all codes combined and by code source and type. RESULTS: Of 232 incident stroke-coded cases, 97% had EPR information available. Data sources were 30% hospital admission only, 39% primary care only, 28% hospital and primary care, and 3% death records only. While 42% of cases were coded as unspecified stroke type, review of EPRs enabled a pathologic type to be assigned in >99%. PPVs (95% confidence intervals) were 79% (73%-84%) for any stroke (89% for hospital admission codes, 80% for primary care codes) and 83% (74%-90%) for ischemic stroke. PPVs for small numbers of death record and hemorrhagic stroke codes were low but imprecise. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke and ischemic stroke cases in UKB can be ascertained through linked health datasets with sufficient accuracy for many research studies. Further work is needed to understand the accuracy of death record and hemorrhagic stroke codes and to develop scalable approaches for better identifying stroke types.


Asunto(s)
Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Adulto , Anciano , Isquemia Encefálica/epidemiología , Recolección de Datos/métodos , Conjuntos de Datos como Asunto , Certificado de Defunción , Femenino , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Incidencia , Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Admisión del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Prospectivos , Reino Unido/epidemiología
3.
PLoS One ; 12(2): e0172639, 2017.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28245254

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Motor neurone disease (MND) is a rare neurodegenerative condition, with poorly understood aetiology. Large, population-based, prospective cohorts will enable powerful studies of the determinants of MND, provided identification of disease cases is sufficiently accurate. Follow-up in many such studies relies on linkage to routinely-collected health datasets. We systematically evaluated the accuracy of such datasets in identifying MND cases. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for studies published between 01/01/1990-16/11/2015 that compared MND cases identified in routinely-collected, coded datasets to a reference standard. We recorded study characteristics and two key measures of diagnostic accuracy-positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity. We conducted descriptive analyses and quality assessments of included studies. RESULTS: Thirteen eligible studies provided 13 estimates of PPV and five estimates of sensitivity. Twelve studies assessed hospital and/or death certificate-derived datasets; one evaluated a primary care dataset. All studies were from high income countries (UK, Europe, USA, Hong Kong). Study methods varied widely, but quality was generally good. PPV estimates ranged from 55-92% and sensitivities from 75-93%. The single (UK-based) study of primary care data reported a PPV of 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of routinely-collected health datasets is likely to be sufficient for identifying cases of MND in large-scale prospective epidemiological studies in high income country settings. Primary care datasets, particularly from countries with a widely-accessible national healthcare system, are potentially valuable data sources warranting further investigation.


Asunto(s)
Recolección de Datos/normas , Enfermedad de la Neurona Motora/diagnóstico , Bases de Datos Factuales/normas , Atención a la Salud , Humanos
4.
Int J Stroke ; 11(6): 626-36, 2016 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27091144

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Accurately distinguishing non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) subtypes is important since they may have different risk factors, causal pathways, management, and prognosis. We systematically assessed the inter- and intra-rater reliability of ICH classification systems. METHODS: We sought all available reliability assessments of anatomical and mechanistic ICH classification systems from electronic databases and personal contacts until October 2014. We assessed included studies' characteristics, reporting quality and potential for bias; summarized reliability with kappa value forest plots; and performed meta-analyses of the proportion of cases classified into each subtype. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: We included 8 of 2152 studies identified. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were substantial to perfect for anatomical and mechanistic systems (inter-rater kappa values: anatomical 0.78-0.97 [six studies, 518 cases], mechanistic 0.89-0.93 [three studies, 510 cases]; intra-rater kappas: anatomical 0.80-1 [three studies, 137 cases], mechanistic 0.92-0.93 [two studies, 368 cases]). Reporting quality varied but no study fulfilled all criteria and none was free from potential bias. All reliability studies were performed with experienced raters in specialist centers. Proportions of ICH subtypes were largely consistent with previous reports suggesting that included studies are appropriately representative. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of existing classification systems appears excellent but is unknown outside specialist centers with experienced raters. Future reliability comparisons should be facilitated by studies following recently published reporting guidelines.


Asunto(s)
Hemorragia Cerebral/clasificación , Hemorragia Cerebral/diagnóstico por imagen , Hemorragia Cerebral/fisiopatología , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados
5.
PLoS One ; 10(10): e0140533, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26496350

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Long-term follow-up of population-based prospective studies is often achieved through linkages to coded regional or national health care data. Our knowledge of the accuracy of such data is incomplete. To inform methods for identifying stroke cases in UK Biobank (a prospective study of 503,000 UK adults recruited in middle-age), we systematically evaluated the accuracy of these data for stroke and its main pathological types (ischaemic stroke, intracerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage), determining the optimum codes for case identification. METHODS: We sought studies published from 1990-November 2013, which compared coded data from death certificates, hospital admissions or primary care with a reference standard for stroke or its pathological types. We extracted information on a range of study characteristics and assessed study quality with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies tool (QUADAS-2). To assess accuracy, we extracted data on positive predictive values (PPV) and-where available-on sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (NPV). RESULTS: 37 of 39 eligible studies assessed accuracy of International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-coded hospital or death certificate data. They varied widely in their settings, methods, reporting, quality, and in the choice and accuracy of codes. Although PPVs for stroke and its pathological types ranged from 6-97%, appropriately selected, stroke-specific codes (rather than broad cerebrovascular codes) consistently produced PPVs >70%, and in several studies >90%. The few studies with data on sensitivity, specificity and NPV showed higher sensitivity of hospital versus death certificate data for stroke, with specificity and NPV consistently >96%. Few studies assessed either primary care data or combinations of data sources. CONCLUSIONS: Particular stroke-specific codes can yield high PPVs (>90%) for stroke/stroke types. Inclusion of primary care data and combining data sources should improve accuracy in large epidemiological studies, but there is limited published information about these strategies.


Asunto(s)
Registros Electrónicos de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Registros Electrónicos de Salud/normas , Accidente Cerebrovascular/diagnóstico , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Adulto , Certificado de Defunción , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades/normas , Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Reino Unido/epidemiología
6.
PLoS One ; 10(9): e0137538, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26355837

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review of the accuracy of patient self-report of stroke to inform approaches to ascertaining and confirming stroke cases in large prospective studies. METHODS: We sought studies comparing patient self-report against a reference standard for stroke. We extracted data on survey method(s), response rates, participant characteristics, the reference standard used, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of self-report. Where possible we also calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and stroke prevalence. Study-level risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies tool (QUADAS-2). RESULTS: From >1500 identified articles, we included 17 studies. Most asked patients to report a lifetime history of stroke but a few limited recall time to ≤5 years. Some included questions for transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke synonyms. No study was free of risk of bias in the QUADAS-2 assessment, the most frequent causes of bias being incomplete reference standard data, absence of blinding of adjudicators to self-report status, and participant response rates (<80%). PPV of self-report ranged from 22-87% (17 studies), sensitivity from 36-98% (10 studies), specificity from 96-99.6% (10 studies), and NPV from 88.2-99.9% (10 studies). PPV increased with stroke prevalence as expected. Among six studies with available relevant data, if confirmed TIAs were considered to be true rather than false positive strokes, PPV of self-report was >75% in all but one study. It was not possible to assess the influence of recall time or of the question(s) asked on PPV or sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of the study population strongly influence self-report accuracy. In population-based studies with low stroke prevalence, a large proportion of self-reported strokes may be false positives. Self-report is therefore unlikely to be helpful for identifying cases without subsequent confirmation, but may be useful for case ascertainment in combination with other data sources.


Asunto(s)
Vigilancia en Salud Pública , Autoinforme , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Bancos de Muestras Biológicas , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Evaluación del Resultado de la Atención al Paciente , Prevalencia , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Factores de Riesgo , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA