Cited by 279Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchMedical Coding and Health InformationReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Validity of Dementia Diagnoses in the Danish Hospital Registers

Phung, Thien Kieu Thi, Andersen, Birgitte Bo, Høgh, Peter, Kessing, Lars Vedel, Mortensen, Preben Bo, Waldemar, Gunhild·2007·Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders

Abstract

Background:The validity of dementia diagnoses in the Danish nationwide hospital registers was evaluated to determine the value of these registers in epidemiological research about dementia. Methods: Two hundred patients were randomly selected from 4,682 patients registered for the first time with a dementia diagnosis in the last 6 months of 2003. The patients’ medical journals were reviewed to evaluate if they fulfilled ICD-10 and/or DSM-IV criteria for dementia and specific dementia subtypes. The patients who were still alive in 2006 were invited to an interview. Results: One hundred and ninety-seven journals were available for review and 51 patients were interviewed. A registered diagnosis of dementia was found to be correct in 169 (85.8%) cases. Regarding dementia subtypes, the degree of agreement between the registers and the results of the validating process was low with a kappa of 0.36 (95% CI 0.24–0.48). Conclusion: The validity of dementia syndrome in the Danish hospital registers was high and allows for epidemiological studies about dementia. Alzheimer’s disease, although underregistered, also had a good validity once the diagnosis was registered. In general, other ICD-10 dementia subtypes in the registers had a low validity and are less suitable for epidemiological research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000107084

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phung, T. K. T., Andersen, B. B., Høgh, P., Kessing, L. V., Mortensen, P. B., & Waldemar, G.
Affiliations
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
Venue
Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2007
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
220-228
ISSN
  • 1420-8008 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9824
OpenAlex
W2124969446
Cited by
279
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
  • Fondation pour la Recherche sur Alzheimer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
dementia, diagnostic validity, hospital registers, ICD-10, DSM-IV, Alzheimer's disease, dementia subtypes
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Dementia, Denmark, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Medical Records, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Registries, Reproducibility of Results

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