4.2 Article

Validity of congenital malformation diagnostic codes recorded in Quebec's administrative databases

Journal

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages 881-889

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3446

Keywords

congenital malformations; ICD codes; validity; administrative databases; Quebec; asthma; pharmacoepidemiology

Funding

  1. Genentech
  2. Reseau Quebecois de recherche sur l'usage des medicaments (RQRUM)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To assess the validity of the diagnostic codes of congenital malformations (CMs) recorded in two of Quebec's administrative databases. Methods A cohort of pregnancies and infants born to asthmatic and non-asthmatic women in 1990-2002 was reconstructed using Quebec's administrative databases. From this cohort, we selected 269 infants with a CM and 144 without CM born to asthmatic women, together with 284 and 138 infants, respectively, born to non-asthmatic women. The diagnoses of CMs recorded in the databases were compared with the diagnoses written by the physicians in the infants' medical charts. The positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) for all, major, and several specific CMs were estimated. Results The PPVs for all CMs and major CMs were 82.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 78.5%-85.9%) and 78.1% (74.1%-82.1%), respectively, in the asthmatic group and were 79.2% (75.4%-83.1%) and 69.0% (64.6%-73.4%), respectively, in the non-asthmatic group. PPVs >80% were found for several specific CMs, including cardiac, cleft, and limb CMs in both groups. The NPV for any CM was 88.2% (95% CI: 85.1%-91.3%) in the asthmatic group and 94.2% (92.2%-96.2%) in the non-asthmatic group. Conclusions Quebec's administrative databases are valid tools for epidemiological research of CMs. The results were similar between infants born to women with and without asthma. Copyright (C) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available