Cited by 1,109Medical Coding and Health InformationElectronic Health Records SystemsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Validation and validity of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review

Open access
Herrett, Emily, Thomas, Sara L., Schoonen, W. Marieke, Smeeth, Liam, Hall, Andrew J.·2010·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

AIMS To investigate the range of methods used to validate diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), to summarize findings and to assess the quality of these validations. METHODS A systematic literature review was performed by searching PubMed and Embase for publications using GPRD data published between 1987 and April 2008. Additional publications were identified from conference proceedings, back issues of relevant journals, bibliographies of retrieved publications and relevant websites. Publications that reported attempts to validate disease diagnoses recorded in the GPRD were included. RESULTS We identified 212 publications, often validating more than one diagnosis. In total, 357 validations investigating 183 different diagnoses met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 303 (85%) utilized data from outside the GPRD to validate diagnoses. The remainder utilized only data recorded in the database. The median proportion of cases with a confirmed diagnosis was 89% (range 24–100%). Details of validation methods and results were often incomplete. CONCLUSIONS A number of methods have been used to assess validity. Overall, estimates of validity were high. However, the quality of reporting of the validations was often inadequate to permit a clear interpretation. Not all methods provided a quantitative estimate of validity and most methods considered only the positive predictive value of a set of diagnostic codes in a highly selected group of cases. We make recommendations for methodology and reporting to strengthen further the use of the GPRD in research.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03537.x

Cites

28 of 28 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herrett, E., Thomas, S. L., Schoonen, W. M., Smeeth, L., & Hall, A. J.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Amgen (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Herrett, Emily
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-23
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
4-14
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
OpenAlex
W2163589808
Cited by
1,109
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 89 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 104 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 92 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 52
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (082178)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
Clinical Practice Research Datalink, diagnosis validation, validity, electronic health records, primary care data, positive predictive value, diagnosis codes, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Clinical Competence, Diagnostic Errors, Family Practice, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research, Reproducibility of Results, 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