Cited by 148Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsPrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Identifying periods of acceptable computer usage in primary care research databases

Horsfall, Laura, Walters, Kate, Petersen, Irene·2013·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

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

Crossref · 10.1002/pds.3368

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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