Identifying periods of acceptable computer usage in primary care research databases
Abstract
Purpose: To examine the effect of applying different data quality filters on the incidence of disease and prescribing trends over time in a primary care research database and validate a new method for defining periods of adequate computer usage. Methods: Acceptable computer usage (ACU) was defined as the year in which a general practice was continuously entering on average at least two therapy records, one medical record and one additional health data record per patient per year. The effect of using this date on the incidence of a range of outcomes (antibiotic prescriptions, myocardial infarction, colon cancer, lung cancer) over time was compared with other methods for defining the start of patient follow‐up in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database containing UK patient records. Various combinations of the follow‐up start dates were applied to the data to calculate incidence rates: (i) registration date, (ii) practice computerization date, (iii) acceptable mortality recording (AMR) (iv) ACU. Results: On average, the ACU date was 3.3 years after the AMR date. Applying the AMR or ACU dates separately or in combination produced trends in incidence rates more comparable with external data sources than using the year of practice registration or computerization. The estimated incidence rates were highly sensitive to different methods of defining start date in early time periods. Conclusions: Using the latest of AMR and ACU dates is useful for improving the integrity of THIN data. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CVD diagnoses have previously been validated in THIN with positive predictive values (PPVs) greater than 90%.
“CVD diagnoses have previously been validated in THIN with positive predictive values (PPVs) greater than 90%.46,47”
From Mortality gap for people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: UK-based cohort study 2000–2014 (2017) · cites this paper as [46]
The exposure groups (bipolar disorder and schizophrenia) and the outcomes (mortality, CVD deaths, CVD, suicide and self-harm) have been well validated.
“The exposure groups (bipolar disorder and schizophrenia)44,45 and the outcomes (mortality, CVD deaths, CVD, suicide and self-harm)46,47,50,51 have been well validated.”
From Mortality gap for people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: UK-based cohort study 2000–2014 (2017) · cites this paper as [46]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 7 · Cited by 148
- Authors
- Horsfall, L., Walters, K., & Petersen, I.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Horsfall, Laura
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-11-04
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-69
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W1935831760
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 12.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- antibiotic prescribing trends, incidence trends, Health Improvement Network, data integrity
- MeSH terms
- United Kingdom, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Time Factors, Incidence, Databases, Factual, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Pharmacoepidemiology, Electronic Health Records
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review