4.6 Article

Using multiple data features improved the validity of osteoporosis case ascertainment from administrative databases

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 61, 期 12, 页码 1250-1260

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.02.002

关键词

Osteoporosis; Classification trees; Neural networks; Logistic regression; Prevalence; Sensitivity; Specificity

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim was to construct and validate algorithms for osteoporosis case ascertainment from administrative databases and to estimate the population prevalence of osteoporosis for these algorithms. Study Design and Setting: Artificial neural networks, classification trees, and logistic regression were applied to hospital, physician, and pharmacy data from Manitoba, Canada. Discriminative performance and calibration (i.e., error) were compared for algorithms defined from different sets of diagnosis, prescription drug, comorbidity, and demographic variables. Algorithms were validated against a regional bone mineral density testing program. Results: Discriminative performance and calibration were poorer and sensitivity was generally lower for algorithms based on diagnosis codes alone than for algorithms based on an expanded set of data features that included osteoporosis prescriptions and age. Validation measures were similar for neural networks and classification trees, but prevalence estimates were lower for the former model. Conclusion: Multiple features of administrative data generally resulted in improved sensitivity of osteoporosis case-detection algorithm without loss of specificity. However, prevalence estimates using an expanded set of features were still slightly lower than estimates from a population-based study with primary data collection. The classification methods developed in this study can be extended to other chronic diseases for which there may be multiple markers in administrative data. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据