Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 834

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Positive predictive value of cardiovascular diagnoses in the Danish National Patient Registry: a validation study

Open access
Sundbøll, Jens, Adelborg, Kasper, Munch, Troels, Frøslev, Trine, Sørensen, Henrik Toft, Bøtker, Hans Erik, Schmidt, Morten·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: The majority of cardiovascular diagnoses in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) remain to be validated despite extensive use in epidemiological research. We therefore examined the positive predictive value (PPV) of cardiovascular diagnoses in the DNPR. Design: Population-based validation study. Setting: 1 university hospital and 2 regional hospitals in the Central Denmark Region, 2010–2012. Participants: For each cardiovascular diagnosis, up to 100 patients from participating hospitals were randomly sampled during the study period using the DNPR. Main outcome measure: Using medical record review as the reference standard, we examined the PPV for cardiovascular diagnoses in the DNPR, coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. Results: A total of 2153 medical records (97% of the total sample) were available for review. The PPVs ranged from 64% to 100%, with a mean PPV of 88%. The PPVs were ≥90% for first-time myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stable angina pectoris, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, takotsubo cardiomyopathy, arterial hypertension, atrial fibrillation or flutter, cardiac arrest, mitral valve regurgitation or stenosis, aortic valve regurgitation or stenosis, pericarditis, hypercholesterolaemia, aortic dissection, aortic aneurysm/dilation and arterial claudication. The PPVs were between 80% and 90% for recurrent myocardial infarction, first-time unstable angina pectoris, pulmonary hypertension, bradycardia, ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, endocarditis, cardiac tumours, first-time venous thromboembolism and between 70% and 80% for first-time and recurrent admission due to heart failure, first-time dilated cardiomyopathy, restrictive cardiomyopathy and recurrent venous thromboembolism. The PPV for first-time myocarditis was 64%. The PPVs were consistent within age, sex, calendar year and hospital categories. Conclusions: The validity of cardiovascular diagnoses in the DNPR is overall high and sufficient for use in research since 2010.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012832

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 27 references

Cited by

See all 834

Metadata

Authors
Sundbøll, J., Adelborg, K., Munch, T., Frøslev, T., Sørensen, H. T., Bøtker, H. E., & Schmidt, M.
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-11
Volume
6
Issue
11
Pages
e012832
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2551469077
Cited by
834
References
27
FWCI
90.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Positive predictive value of cardiovascular diagnoses in the Danish National Patient Registry: a validation study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012832
The paper
Sundbøll, J., Adelborg, K., Munch, T., Frøslev, T., Sørensen, H. T., Bøtker, H. E., & Schmidt, M. (2016). Positive predictive value of cardiovascular diagnoses in the Danish National Patient Registry: a validation study. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012832

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.