Evaluating the quality of prostate cancer diagnosis recording in routinely collected primary care data for observational research: A study using multiple linked English electronic health records databases

Gayasha Batheegama Gamarachchige, Elizabeth Ford, Jo Armes, Sotiris Moschoyiannis, Michelle Collins, Patrick Francsics, Agnieszka Lemanska
{"title":"Evaluating the quality of prostate cancer diagnosis recording in routinely collected primary care data for observational research: A study using multiple linked English electronic health records databases","authors":"Gayasha Batheegama Gamarachchige, Elizabeth Ford, Jo Armes, Sotiris Moschoyiannis, Michelle Collins, Patrick Francsics, Agnieszka Lemanska","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.21.24312333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Primary care data in the UK are widely used for cancer research, but the reliability of recording key events such as diagnoses remains uncertain. Data linkage can mitigate these uncertainties; however, researchers may avoid linkage due to high costs, tight timelines, and sample size limitations. Hence, this study aimed to assess the quality of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnoses in primary care. We utilised Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care data linked to National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England. We compared accuracy, completeness, and timing of diagnosis recording between sources to facilitate decision-making regarding data source selection for future research. Methods: Incident PCa diagnoses (2000-2016) for males aged ≥46 years recorded in at least one study data source were examined. The accuracy of a data source was estimated by the proportion of diagnoses recorded in the specific source that was also confirmed by any linked source. Completeness was estimated by identifying the proportion of all diagnoses in linked sources with a matching diagnosis in the specific source. Results: The study included 51,487 PCa patients from either source. CPRD demonstrated 86.9% accuracy and 68.2% completeness against NCRAS and 75.1% accuracy and 61.1% completeness against HES. Overall, CPRD showed the highest accuracy (93%) but the lowest completeness (60.7%). Diagnosis dates in CPRD were more concordant with NCRAS (90.6% within 6 months) than with HES (61.2%). Over time, accuracy and completeness improved, especially after 2004. Discrepancies in diagnosis dates revealed a median delay of 2 weeks in CPRD than NCRAS and 1 week than HES. CPRD Aurum exhibited better quality compared to GOLD. Conclusions: While the accuracy of PCa diagnoses in CPRD compared to linked sources was high, completeness was low. Therefore, linking to HES or NCRAS should be considered for improved case capture, acknowledging their inherent limitations.","PeriodicalId":501023,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.21.24312333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Primary care data in the UK are widely used for cancer research, but the reliability of recording key events such as diagnoses remains uncertain. Data linkage can mitigate these uncertainties; however, researchers may avoid linkage due to high costs, tight timelines, and sample size limitations. Hence, this study aimed to assess the quality of prostate cancer (PCa) diagnoses in primary care. We utilised Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care data linked to National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) in England. We compared accuracy, completeness, and timing of diagnosis recording between sources to facilitate decision-making regarding data source selection for future research. Methods: Incident PCa diagnoses (2000-2016) for males aged ≥46 years recorded in at least one study data source were examined. The accuracy of a data source was estimated by the proportion of diagnoses recorded in the specific source that was also confirmed by any linked source. Completeness was estimated by identifying the proportion of all diagnoses in linked sources with a matching diagnosis in the specific source. Results: The study included 51,487 PCa patients from either source. CPRD demonstrated 86.9% accuracy and 68.2% completeness against NCRAS and 75.1% accuracy and 61.1% completeness against HES. Overall, CPRD showed the highest accuracy (93%) but the lowest completeness (60.7%). Diagnosis dates in CPRD were more concordant with NCRAS (90.6% within 6 months) than with HES (61.2%). Over time, accuracy and completeness improved, especially after 2004. Discrepancies in diagnosis dates revealed a median delay of 2 weeks in CPRD than NCRAS and 1 week than HES. CPRD Aurum exhibited better quality compared to GOLD. Conclusions: While the accuracy of PCa diagnoses in CPRD compared to linked sources was high, completeness was low. Therefore, linking to HES or NCRAS should be considered for improved case capture, acknowledging their inherent limitations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估常规收集的基础医疗数据中前列腺癌诊断记录的质量,以开展观察性研究:使用多个链接的英国电子健康记录数据库进行研究
背景:英国的初级医疗数据被广泛用于癌症研究,但记录诊断等关键事件的可靠性仍不确定。数据关联可减轻这些不确定性;但是,由于成本高、时间紧、样本量有限,研究人员可能会避免关联。因此,本研究旨在评估初级医疗中前列腺癌(PCa)诊断的质量。我们利用了与英国国家癌症登记与分析服务(NCRAS)和医院病例统计(HES)相链接的临床实践研究数据链(CPRD)初级医疗数据。我们比较了不同数据源之间诊断记录的准确性、完整性和时间性,以便为今后的研究选择数据源提供决策依据。方法:对至少一个研究数据源中记录的年龄≥46 岁男性的 PCa 诊断病例(2000-2016 年)进行检查。数据源的准确性是通过特定数据源中记录的诊断结果中被任何链接数据源证实的比例来估算的。完整性是通过确定链接来源中所有诊断与特定来源中匹配诊断的比例来估算的。结果:研究共纳入了 51,487 名 PCa 患者,这些患者来自任一来源。与 NCRAS 相比,CPRD 的准确率为 86.9%,完整率为 68.2%;与 HES 相比,准确率为 75.1%,完整率为 61.1%。总体而言,中央病历数据库的准确率最高(93%),但完整性最低(60.7%)。与 HES(61.2%)相比,中央病历数据库的诊断日期与 NCRAS(90.6%在 6 个月内)更为一致。随着时间的推移,准确性和完整性都有所提高,尤其是在 2004 年之后。诊断日期的差异显示,CPRD 比 NCRAS 中位延迟 2 周,比 HES 中位延迟 1 周。与 GOLD 相比,CPRD Aurum 的质量更高。结论:与链接来源相比,CPRD 中 PCa 诊断的准确性较高,但完整性较低。因此,在承认其固有局限性的同时,应考虑与 HES 或 NCRAS 进行链接,以改进病例采集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Perceived barriers to research and scholarship among physicians Providing an e-cigarette starter kit for smoking cessation and reduction as adjunct to usual care to smokers with a mental health condition: Findings from the ESCAPE feasibility study Primary Care Physicians' Practices and Barriers in Evaluating and Managing Chronic Kidney Disease in New Providence, The Bahamas Development and evaluation of codelists for identifying marginalised groups in primary care Pharmacist Impact on First-Line Antihypertensives in African American Patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1