The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Can patients with osteoporosis, who should benefit from implementation of the national service framework for older people, be identified from general practice computer records? A pilot study that illustrates the variability of computerized medical records and problems with searching them
Abstract
Although UK general practice is highly computerized, comprehensive use of these computers is often limited to registration data and the issue of repeat prescriptions. The recording of diagnostic data is patchy. This study examines whether patients with, or at risk of, osteoporosis can be readily identified from general practice computer records. It reports the findings of a pilot study designed to show the variability of recording the diagnosis of osteoporosis and osteopenia, as well as how useful surrogate markers might be to identify these patients. The study also illustrates the difficulties that even skilled practitioners in a primary care research network experience in extracting clinical data from practice information systems. Computer searches were carried out across six practices in a general practice research network in the south-east of England. Two of these practices had previously undertaken research projects in osteoporosis and were consequently expected to have excellent data quality in osteoporosis. These two practices had a combined list size of 27,500 and the remaining practices had a combined practice population of 43,000 patients. The data were found to be variable with over 10-fold differences between practices in the recorded prevalence of osteoporosis diagnosis as well as its surrogate markers-such as fragility fractures, long-term steroid prescription, etc. There was no difference in data quality between the two practices that had conducted osteoporosis…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Other methods for assessing completeness included agreement between elements from the same source, agreement between the EHR and paper records, agreement between the EHR and another electronic source, and comparing distributions of occurrences between practices or with nationally recorded rates.
“Other methods for assessing completeness included looking at agreement between elements from the same source,49–55 56 agreement between the EHR and paper records,79 87 88 agreement between the EHR and another electronic source of data,79 89 and comparing distributions of occurrences of certain elements between practices97 or with nationally recorded rates.98–100”
From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [97]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Marshall, 2002, The new contract: renaissance or requiem for general practice?, Br J Gen Prac, 52, 531
- de Lusignan, 2001, Use of computer systems in a primary care research network: implications for the NHS Information Strategy, Clin Mgmt, 10, 32
- Thiru, 1999, Have the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in general practice improved in the last five years? The report of a two-practice pilot study, Health Informatics J, 5, 233, 10.1177/146045829900500410 · DOI · Paper page
- Kanis, 2002, Diagnosis of osteoporosis and assessment of fracture risk, Lancet, 359, 1929, 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08761-5 · DOI
- Cooper, 2002, The effectiveness of blood tests in detecting secondary osteoporosis or mimicking conditions in postmenopausal women, Br J Gen Prac, 52, 311
- Harvey, 2002, Osteoporosis in postmenopausal women, Br J Gen Prac, 52, 496
- Mitchell, 2001, A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980–97, BMJ, 322, 279, 10.1136/bmj.322.7281.279 · DOI
- Ballard, 1998, Prevalence of osteoporosis and related risk factors in UK women in the seventh decade: osteoporosis case finding by clinical referral criteria or predictive model?, Osteoporos Int, 8, 535, 10.1007/s001980050095 · DOI
- Versluis, 2001, Clinical risk factors as predictors of postmenopausal osteoporosis in general practice, Br J Gen Prac, 51, 806
- Siris, 2001, Identification and fracture outcomes of undiagnosed low bone mineral density in postmenopausal women: results from the National Osteoporosis Risk Assessment, JAMA, 286, 2815, 10.1001/jama.286.22.2815 · DOI
- de Lusignan, 2000, Alignment of information for health with The NHS plan—a case for substantial investment and reform, Br J Healthcare Comput Info Mgmt, 17, 28
- Black, 2001, An assessment tool for predicting fracture risk in postmenopausal women, Osteoporos Int, 12, 519, 10.1007/s001980170072 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weiskopf, N. G., & Weng, C. (2013) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000681 · Cited by 1,216
Voorham, J., Denig, P., & Groningen Initiative to Analyse Type 2 Diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) group (2007) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m2128 · Cited by 81
Problems with primary care data quality: osteoporosis as an exemplar
DeLusignan, S., Valentin, T., Chan, T., Hague, N., Wood, O., VanVlymen, J., & Dhoul, N. (2004) · Journal of Innovation in Health Informatics · doi:10.14236/jhi.v12i3.120 · Cited by 49
Self-citationde Lusignan, S., Chan, T., Wood, O., Hague, N., Valentin, T., & Van Vlymen, J. (2005) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2004.10.018 · Cited by 19
Self-citationde Lusignan, S., van Vlymen, J. N., Hague, N., & Dhoul, N. (2006) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-006-0188-9 · Cited by 16
Chan, T., de Lusignan, S., Cooper, A., & Elliott, M. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0132146 · Cited by 15
Self-citationEffect of a case-finding strategy for osteoporosis on bisphosphonate prescribing in primary care
Morrison, L., & Tobias, J. (2004) · Osteoporosis International · doi:10.1007/s00198-004-1644-z · Cited by 15
Tackling compliance issues in osteoporosis treatment
Cooper, A. (2006) · doi:10.12968/indn.2006.1.11.74420
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- de Lusignan, S., Chan, T., Wells, S., Cooper, A., Harvey, M., Brew, S., & Wright, M.
- Corresponding author
- de Lusignan, S
- Venue
- Public Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 438-445
- ISSN
- 0033-3506 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081954013
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
- Keywords
- osteoporosis, osteopenia, electronic health records, data quality, surrogate markers, fragility fractures, long-term corticosteroid therapy, read classification, National Service Framework for Older People, falls, patient identification, primary care research networks
- MeSH terms
- Aged, England, Family Practice, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Osteoporosis, Pilot Projects, Population Surveillance, State Medicine, Prevalence, Information Storage and Retrieval, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Public Health Informatics
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