Cited by 80Smoking Behavior and CessationMedical Coding and Health InformationSurvey Methodology and Nonresponse

Agreement between GPRD smoking data: a survey of general practitioners and a population‐based survey

Lewis, James D., Brensinger, Colleen·2004·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Abstract

Background Cigarette smoking is a common habit that is associated with many diseases. Smoking is often an important confounding variable in pharmacoepidemiological studies. The General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is widely used in pharmacoepidemiological research. In this study, we compare data recorded in the GPRD with the smoking history obtained from direct query of general practitioners (GPs) and from a population-based survey. Methods We completed a mailed survey of GPs caring for a random sample of 150 patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The survey asked the GP to categorize the patients smoking status on a specified date. These results were then compared to the data recorded in the GPRD. Smoking status of 225,308 randomly selected GPRD patients without inflammatory bowel disease was compared to the results of a population-based household survey. Results Completed surveys with usable data were received from GPs on 136 of the 150 patients (91%). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of the database for current smoking were 78% (95% CI: 52-94) and 70% (95% CI: 46-88) respectively. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of former smoking were 53% (95% CI: 28-77) and 60% (95% CI: 32-84) respectively. Current and former smoking rates in the GPRD were 79% and 29% respectively of expected rates according to the population-based survey. Conclusions Current smoking is more completely recorded in the GPRD than former smoking. These data need to be consi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pds.902

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Some researchers looking at the quality of research databases pulled from general practices in the UK have adopted relatively consistent approaches to comparing the distributions of data concerning specific clinical phenomena to information from registries and surveys.

    “Some researchers looking at the quality of research databases pulled from general practices in the UK have adopted relatively consistent approaches to comparing the distributions of data concerning specific clinical phenomena to information from registries and surveys.31 98 99 102”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, J. D., & Brensinger, C.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Lewis, James D.
Venue
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-11-26
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
437-441
ISSN
  • 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1557
OpenAlex
W2006465967
Cited by
80
References
15
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k08dk002589-05)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K08 DK 02589)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
Keywords
smoking status, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, data validation, general practitioners, current smoking, inflammatory bowel disease, pharmacoepidemiology, confounding variables, sensitivity and positive predictive value
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Family Practice, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Population Surveillance, Surveys and Questionnaires, Smoking, Reproducibility of Results, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Databases, Factual, Pharmacoepidemiology

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