4.6 Review

The validity of administrative data to identify hip fractures is high-a systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages 278-285

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.004

Keywords

Osteoporosis; Fractures; Administrative data; Diagnostic algorithms; Validity; Systematic review

Funding

  1. Canadian Arthritis Network
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Fonds de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the validity of the diagnostic algorithms for osteoporosis and fractures in administrative data. Study Design and Setting: A systematic search was conducted to identify studies that reported the validity of a diagnostic algorithm for osteoporosis and/or fractures using administrative data. Results: Twelve studies were reviewed. The validity of the diagnosis of osteoporosis in administrative data was fair when at least 3 years of data from hospital and physician visit claims were used (area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC] = 0.70) or when pharmacy data were used (with or without the use of hospital and physician visit claims data, AUC > 0.70). Nonetheless, the positive predictive values (PPVs) were low (<0.60). There was good evidence to support the use of hospital data to identify hip fractures (sensitivity: 69-97%; PPV: 63-96%) and the addition of physician claims diagnostic and procedural codes to hospitalization diagnostic codes improved these characteristics (sensitivity: 83-97%; PPV: 86-98%). Vertebral fractures were difficult to identify using administrative data. There was some evidence to support the use of administrative data to define other fractures that do not require hospitalization. Conclusions: Administrative data can be used to identify hip fractures. Existing diagnostic algorithms to identify osteoporosis and vertebral fractures in administrative data are suboptimal. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available