The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Validity and completeness of the General Practice Research Database for studies of inflammatory bowel disease
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and completeness of the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) as a tool for research into inflammatory bowel disease epidemiology. Methods: Patients diagnosed with inflammatory bowel disease were identified from GPRD. Mailed surveys were sent to the general practitioner caring for a stratified random sample of 170 of these patients and collected information on the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease and the most recent surgery and hospitalization. Results: Usable surveys were returned for 157 patients (92%). The inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis was highly probable or probable in 144 (92%, 95% CI 86 to 96%). Among the 53 patients with a potentially incident inflammatory bowel disease diagnosis, 33 (62%) had the first recorded diagnosis in GPRD within 30 days of the date reported in the survey (median difference −8 days; interquartile range 0 to −81days). Of 12 surgeries and 25 hospitalizations reported in the survey, 11 (92%) and 19 (76%) were identified in GPRD, respectively. Conclusions: The diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in GPRD appears reliable for most patients. Important medical events such as hospitalizations and surgery are recorded at a high rate, although algorithms to identify these events are complex. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Jick, H., Jick, S. S., & Derby, L. E. (1991) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.302.6779.766 · Cited by 839
The VAMP research multi-purpose database in the U.K.
Lis, Y. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)00137-f · Cited by 116
Cited by
Langan, S. M., Smeeth, L., Hubbard, R., Fleming, K. M., Smith, C. J. P., & West, J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a180 · Cited by 632
Lewis, J. D., Schinnar, R., Bilker, W. B., Wang, X., & Strom, B. L. (2007) · Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety · doi:10.1002/pds.1335 · Cited by 602
Self-citationPrevalence and Treatment of Psoriasis in the United Kingdom: A Population-Based Study
Gelfand, J. M., Weinstein, R., Porter, S. B., Neimann, A. L., Berlin, J. A., & Margolis, D. J. (2005) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.141.12.1537 · Cited by 600
Absence of Cross-Reactivity between Sulfonamide Antibiotics and Sulfonamide Nonantibiotics
Strom, B. L., Schinnar, R., Apter, A. J., Margolis, D. J., Lautenbach, E., Hennessy, S., Bilker, W. B., & Pettitt, D. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022963 · Cited by 349
Self-citationWest, J., Fleming, K. M., Tata, L. J., Card, T. R., & Crooks, C. J. (2014) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.55 · Cited by 277
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewis, J. D., Brensinger, C., Bilker, W. B., & Strom, B. L.
- Venue
- Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 211-218
- ISSN
- 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1557
- OpenAlex
- W2024499088
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 26.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.