4.5 Article

Validity of the Prescriber Information in the Danish National Prescription Registry

期刊

BASIC & CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & TOXICOLOGY
卷 119, 期 4, 页码 376-380

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12610

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to measure the validity of the prescriber information recorded in the Danish National Prescription Registry (DNPR). The prescriber information recorded in the pharmacies' electronic dispensing system was considered to represent the prescriber information recorded in the DNPR. Further, the problem of validity of the prescriber information pertains only to non-electronic prescriptions, as these are manually entered into the dispensing system. The recorded prescriber information was thus validated against information from a total of 2000 non-electronic prescriptions at five Danish community pharmacies. The validity of the recorded prescriber information was measured at the level of the individual prescriber and the prescriber type, respectively. The proportion of non-electronic prescriptions with incorrect registrations was 22.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20.6-24.3) when considering individual prescriber identifiers and 17.8% (95% CI: 16.1-19.5) when considering prescriber type. When excluding prescriptions specifically registered as missing prescriber identifier', the proportions decreased to 9.5% (95% CI: 8.2-11.0) and 4.1% (95% CI: 3.2-5.1), respectively. The positive predictive values for the classification of prescriber types were in the range of 94.0-99.2%, while the sensitivity ranged between 64.6% and 91.8%. With a maximum of 14% non-electronic prescriptions of all prescriptions in the DNPR in 2015, this corresponds to correct classification of prescriber types in the DNPR of at least 97.5%. In conclusion, the prescriber information in the DNPR was found to be valid, especially in recent years. Researchers should be aware of the low sensitivity towards prescriptions from private practicing specialists.

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

4.5
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