4.2 Article

Validation of The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database for epidemiologic studies of chronic kidney disease

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 1138-1149

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.2203

关键词

chronic kidney disease; validity; database; epidemiology

资金

  1. NIH [T32-DK07006-35, K24-DK076808, K24-DK078228, UL1-RR024134]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a prevalent and important outcome and covariate in pharmacoepidemiology. The Health Improvement Network (THIN) in the UK represents a unique resource for population-based studies of CKD. We compiled a valid list of Read codes to identify subjects with moderate to advanced CKD. Methods A cross-sectional validation study was performed to identify codes that best define CKD Stages 3-5. All subjects with at least one non-zero measure of serum creatinine after 1 January 2002 were included. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was calculated according to the Schwartz formula for subjects aged < 18 years and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula for subjects aged >= 18 years. CKD was defined as an eGFR < 60 mL/minute/1.73 m(2) on at least two occasions, more than 90 days apart. Results The laboratory definition identified 230426 subjects with CKD, for a period prevalence in 2008 of 4.56% (95% CI, 4.54-4.58). A list of 45 Read codes was compiled, which yielded a positive predictive value of 88.9% (95% CI, 88.7-89.1), sensitivity of 48.8%, negative predictive value of 86.5%, and specificity of 98.2%. Of the 11.1% of subjects with a code who did not meet the laboratory definition, 83.6% had at least one eGFR < 60. The most commonly used code was for CKD Stage 3. Conclusions The proposed list of codes can be used to accurately identify CKD when serum creatinine data are limited. The most sensitive approach for the detection of CKD is to use this list to supplement creatinine measures. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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