Cited by 180Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementMedical Coding and Health InformationPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Validation of the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in general practice database studies

Open access
Lawrenson, R., Todd, J.‐C., Leydon, G. M., Williams, T. J., Farmer, R. D. T.·2000·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Aims The study was conducted to determine whether the method for selecting cases of venous thromboembolism (VTE) from general practice databases significantly affected the findings of an epidemiological study. Methods Cases of VTE were identified from the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) by searching for codes for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). These had to be supported by evidence of anticoagulation and be exposed to a combined oral contraceptive (COC) at the time of the event. Additional information about the event was sought from general practitioners who were requested to complete a questionnaire and to supply anonymised copies of hospital letters and discharge summaries. Results Of the 285 cases identified from the GPRD, additional information was available for 177 VTE events. This information showed that 84% of those events were supported by hospital investigations or a death certificate. Using only verified cases, rather than all GPRD identified events, did not alter the results of the epidemiological study. Conclusions The GPRD provides information of sufficiently high quality to allow valid epidemiological research of VTE events. Excluding cases without a database record of hospital admission would lead to valid events being overlooked, and an under‐estimate of the disease incidence.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00199.x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Two other approaches to assessing correctness were using corrections seen in log files as a proxy for correctness, and comparing data on the same patients from a registry and an EHR.

    “Two other approaches to were using corrections seen in log files as a proxy for correctness,73 and comparing data on the same patients from a registry and an EHR.90”

    From Methods and dimensions of electronic health record data quality assessment: enabling reuse for clinical research (2013) · cites this paper as [90]

    The Methods section (page not available) describes checking cases identified in a general-practice database against information from the same patients’ doctors, including hospital letters and discharge summaries. This supports comparing patient records to assess correctness, but the paper does not describe a comparison between a registry and an EHR. The log-file approach is attached to a different citation and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Committee on the Safety of Medicines. Combined oral contraceptives and thromboembolism. London: Committee on the Safety of Medicines; 1995. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lawrenson, R., Todd, J. ‐., Leydon, G. M., Williams, T. J., & Farmer, R. D. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Surrey (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Lawrenson, R.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-06
Volume
49
Issue
6
Pages
591-596
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
OpenAlex
W1707746270
Cited by
180
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, case selection, case validation, Clinical Practice Research Datalink, anticoagulation, combined oral contraceptives, hospitalization, disease incidence, general practice records
MeSH terms
Adult, Anticoagulants, Contraceptives, Oral, Combined, Family Practice, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Thromboembolism, Reproducibility of Results, Epidemiologic Studies, Case-Control Studies, Databases, Factual

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