The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Registration of acute stroke: validity in the Danish Stroke Registry and the Danish National Registry of Patients
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The validity of the registration of patients in stroke-specific registries has seldom been investigated, nor compared with administrative hospital discharge registries. The objective of this study was to examine the validity of the registration of patients in a stroke-specific registry (The Danish Stroke Registry [DSR]) and a hospital discharge registry (The Danish National Patient Registry [DNRP]). METHODS: Assuming that all patients with stroke were registered in either the DSR, DNRP or both, we first identified a sample of 75 patients registered with stroke in 2009; 25 patients in the DSR, 25 patients in the DNRP, and 25 patients registered in both data sources. Using the medical record as a gold standard, we then estimated the sensitivity and positive predictive value of a stroke diagnosis in the DSR and the DNRP. Secondly, we reviewed 160 medical records for all potential stroke patients discharged from four major neurologic wards within a 7-day period in 2010, and estimated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the DSR and the DNRP. RESULTS: Using the first approach, we found a sensitivity of 97% (worst/best case scenario 92%-99%) in the DSR and 79% (worst/best case scenario 73%-84%) in the DNRP. The positive predictive value was 90% (worst/best case scenario 72%-98%) in the DSR and 79% (worst/best case scenario 62%-88%) in the DNRP. Using the second approach, we found a sensitivity of 91% (95% confidence interval [CI] 81%-96%) and 58% (95% CI 46%-69%) in the DSR and DNRP, respectively. The negative predictive value was 91% (95% CI 83%-96%) in the DSR and 72% (95% CI 62%-80%) in the DNRP. The specificity and positive predictive value did not differ among the registries. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest a higher sensitivity in the DSR than the DNRP for acute stroke diagnoses, whereas the positive predictive value was comparable in the two data sources.
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
Cited by
The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology
Schmidt, M., Pedersen, L., & Sørensen, H. T. (2014) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3 · Cited by 3,441
Validity of diagnostic codes for acute stroke in administrative databases: a systematic review.
McCormick, N., Bhole, V., Lacaille, D., & Avina-Zubieta, J. A. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0135834 · Cited by 414
Svensson, E., Baggesen, L. M., Johnsen, S. P., Pedersen, L., Nørrelund, H., Buhl, E. S., Haase, C. L., & Thomsen, R. W. (2017) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc16-2271 · Cited by 77
Self-citationHastrup, S., Hedegaard, J. N., Andersen, G., Rungby, J., & Johnsen, S. P. (2024) · European Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1111/ene.16329 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wildenschild, C., Mehnert, F., W. Thomsen, R., Iversen, H., Vestergaard, K., Ingeman, A., & Johnsen, S. P.
- Venue
- Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 27
- ISSN
- 1179-1349 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2070380887
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 20.11
- 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: Registration of acute stroke: validity in the Danish Stroke Registry and the Danish National Registry of Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2147/clep.s50449
- The paper
- Wildenschild, C., Mehnert, F., W. Thomsen, R., Iversen, H., Vestergaard, K., Ingeman, A., & Johnsen, S. P. (2013). Registration of acute stroke: validity in the Danish Stroke Registry and the Danish National Registry of Patients. Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.2147/clep.s50449
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.
