4.4 Review

Quality of Data in Perinatal Population Health Databases A Systematic Review

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 E7-E20

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31821d2b1d

关键词

validation; sensitivity; reliability; pregnancy; birth certificates; registries

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Administrative or population health datasets (PHDS) are increasingly being used for research related to maternal and infant health. However, the accuracy and completeness of the information in the PHDS is important to ensure validity of the results of this research. Objective: To compile and review studies that validate the reporting of conditions and procedures related to pregnancy, childbirth, and newborns and provide a tool of reference for researchers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted of Medline and EMBASE databases to find studies that validated routinely collected datasets containing diagnoses and procedures related to pregnancy, childbirth, and newborns. To be included datasets had to be validated against a gold standard, such as review of medical records, maternal interview or survey, specialized register, or laboratory data. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and/or kappa statistic for each diagnosis or procedure code were calculated. Results: Forty-three validation studies were included. Under-enumeration was common, with the level of ascertainment increasing as time from diagnosis/procedure to birth decreased. Most conditions and procedures had high specificities indicating few false positives, and procedures were more accurately reported than diagnoses. Hospital discharge data were generally more accurate than birth data, however identifying cases from more than 1 dataset further increased ascertainment. Conclusions: This comprehensive collection of validation studies summarizing the quality of perinatal population data will be an invaluable resource to all researchers working with PHDS.

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

4.4
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