4.5 Article

The Copenhagen Primary Care Differential Count (CopDiff) database

Journal

CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages 199-211

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S60991

Keywords

differential leukocyte count; research; nationwide health registers

Funding

  1. Danish Cancer Society
  2. Eva and Henry Fraenkels' Memorial Foundation
  3. Axel Muusfeldts Memorial Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The differential blood cell count provides valuable information about a person's state of health. Together with a variety of biochemical variables, these analyses describe important physiological and pathophysiological relations. There is a need for research databases to explore associations between these parameters, concurrent comorbidities, and future disease outcomes. Methods and results: The Copenhagen General Practitioners' Laboratory is the only laboratory serving general practitioners in the Copenhagen area, covering approximately 1.2 million inhabitants. The Copenhagen General Practitioners' Laboratory has registered all analytical results since July 1, 2000. The Copenhagen Primary Care Differential Count database contains all differential blood cell count results (n=1,308,022) from July 1, 2000 to January 25, 2010 requested by general practitioners, along with results from analysis of various other blood components. This data set is merged with detailed data at a person level from The Danish Cancer Registry, The Danish National Patient Register, The Danish Civil Registration System, and The Danish Register of Causes of Death. Conclusion: This paper reviews methodological issues behind the construction of the Copenhagen Primary Care Differential Count database as well as the distribution of characteristics of the population it covers and the variables that are recorded. Finally, it gives examples of its use as an inspiration to peers for collaboration.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available