Cited by 61Medical Coding and Health InformationInjury Epidemiology and PreventionTrauma and Emergency Care Studies

Identification of incident injuries in hospital discharge registers

Open access
Gedeborg, Rolf, Engquist, Henrik, Berglund, Lars, Michaëlsson, Karl·2008·Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hospital discharge data on injuries constitute a potentially powerful data source for epidemiologic studies. However, reliable identification of incident injury admissions is necessary. The objective of this study was to develop a prediction model for identifying incident hospital admissions, based on variables derived from a hospital discharge register. METHODS: There were 743,022 hospital admissions for injury in Sweden 1998-2004. Of these, 23,920 were in the county of Uppsala and 24% of these people had previous injury admissions. To determine if these admissions were new injuries or readmissions for earlier injuries, we reviewed 817 randomly selected hospital records. A prediction model for incident injury admissions was developed on the basis of patient age, type of admission (urgent or elective), time interval from the previous injury admission, main diagnosis, and department type. RESULTS: The final prediction model showed good discrimination (c-statistic = 0.969). This model was applied to the validation dataset using the optimal cut-off level, and the resulting sensitivity and specificity were adjusted according to the proportion with a previous injury admission in each injury category. The injury with the highest proportion of possible readmissions was hip contusion (35%). Nevertheless, using the prediction model, incident hip contusions were identified with a sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval = 93%-95%) and a specificity of 95% (94%-97%). The accuracy was higher for all other injury categories. CONCLUSIONS: Incident injury admissions can be accurately separated from readmissions using a prediction model based on information derived from hospital discharge data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ede.0b013e318181319e

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gedeborg, R., Engquist, H., Berglund, L., & Michaëlsson, K.
Affiliations
Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Gedeborg, Rolf
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
2008-11
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
860-867
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965811255
Cited by
61
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Uppsala University Publications (Uppsala University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Svenska Läkaresällskapet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Trauma and Emergency Care Studies
Keywords
hospital discharge registry, prediction model, injury epidemiology, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Patient Discharge, Sweden, Wounds and Injuries, Models, Statistical, Cohort Studies, Young Adult

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