The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Completeness and usability of ethnicity data in UK-based primary care and hospital databases
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Ethnicity recording across the National Health Service (NHS) has improved dramatically over the past decade. This study profiles the completeness, consistency and representativeness of routinely collected ethnicity data in both primary care and hospital settings. METHODS: Completeness and consistency of ethnicity recording was examined in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), and the ethnic breakdown of the CPRD was compared with that of the 2011 UK censuses. RESULTS: 27.1% of all patients in the CPRD (1990-2012) have ethnicity recorded. This proportion rises to 78.3% for patients registered since April 2006. The ethnic breakdown of the CPRD is comparable to the UK censuses. 79.4% of HES inpatients, 46.8% of outpatients and 26.8% of A&E patients had their ethnicity recorded. Amongst those with ethnicity recorded on >1 occasion, consistency was over 90% in all data sets except for HES inpatients. Combining CPRD and HES increased completeness to 97%, with 85% of patients having the same ethnicity recorded in both databases. CONCLUSIONS: Using CPRD ethnicity from 2006 onwards maximizes completeness and comparability with the UK population. High concordance within and across NHS sources suggests these data are of high value when examining the continuum of care. Poor completeness and consistency of A&E and outpatient data render these sources unreliable.
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
Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review
Herrett, E., Thomas, S. L., Schoonen, W. M., Smeeth, L., & Hall, A. J. (2010) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03537.x · Cited by 1,109
Self-citationValidity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review
Khan, N. F., Harrison, S. E., & Rose, P. W. (2010) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp10x483562 · Cited by 685
The UK General Practice Research Database
Walley, T., & Mantgani, A. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)04248-7 · Cited by 623
The Read clinical classification.
Chisholm, J. (1990) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.300.6732.1092 · Cited by 504
Systematic review of scope and quality of electronic patient record data in primary care
Thiru, K., Hassey, A., & Sullivan, F. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1070 · Cited by 342
The General Practice Research Database: Role in Pharmacovigilance
Wood, L., & Martinez, C. (2004) · Drug Safety · doi:10.2165/00002018-200427120-00004 · Cited by 331
Williams, T., van Staa, T., Puri, S., & Eaton, S. (2012) · Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety · doi:10.1177/2042098611435911 · Cited by 282
Self-citationShah, B. R., Chiu, M., Amin, S., Ramani, M., Sadry, S., & Tu, J. V. (2010) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-42 · Cited by 222
The General Practice Research Database. Scientific and Ethical Advisory Group
Lawson, D. (1998) · QJM · doi:10.1093/qjmed/91.6.445 · Cited by 176
Hippisley‐Cox, J., O'Hanlon, S., & Coupland, C. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38279.588125.7c · Cited by 134
Cited by
Factors associated with COVID-19-related death using OpenSAFELY
Williamson, E. J., Walker, A. J., Bhaskaran, K., Bacon, S., Bates, C., Morton, C. E., Curtis, H. J., Mehrkar, A., Evans, D., Inglesby, P., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2521-4 · Cited by 6,674
Self-citationData Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD)
Herrett, E., Gallagher, A. M., Bhaskaran, K., Forbes, H., Mathur, R., van Staa, T., & Smeeth, L. (2015) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyv098 · Cited by 2,667
Self-citationBhaskaran, K., dos-Santos-Silva, I., Leon, D. A., Douglas, I. J., & Smeeth, L. (2018) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(18)30288-2 · Cited by 1,228
Self-citationData Resource Profile: Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC)
Herbert, A., Wijlaars, L., Zylbersztejn, A., Cromwell, D., & Hardelid, P. (2017) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyx015 · Cited by 742
Collaborative, T. O., Williamson, E., Walker, A. J., Bhaskaran, K., Bacon, S., Bates, C., Morton, C. E., Curtis, H. J., Mehrkar, A., Evans, D., et al. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.05.06.20092999 · Cited by 6,674
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Mathur, R., Bhaskaran, K., Chaturvedi, N., Leon, D. A., vanStaa, T., Grundy, E., & Smeeth, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-12-08
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 684-692
- ISSN
- 0943-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3850
- 1741-3842
- OpenAlex
- W2144437696
- Cited by
- 462
- References
- 20
- FWCI
- 20.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Completeness and usability of ethnicity data in UK-based primary care and hospital databases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/pubmed/fdt116
- The paper
- Mathur, R., Bhaskaran, K., Chaturvedi, N., Leon, D. A., vanStaa, T., Grundy, E., & Smeeth, L. (2014). Completeness and usability of ethnicity data in UK-based primary care and hospital databases. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdt116
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.
