Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,769

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential

Open access
Schmidt, Morten, Schmidt, Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir, Sandegaard, Jakob Lynge, Ehrenstein, Vera, Pedersen, Lars, Sørensen, Henrik Toft·2015·Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.2147/clep.s91125
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) is one of the world's oldest nationwide hospital registries and is used extensively for research. Many studies have validated algorithms for identifying health events in the DNPR, but the reports are fragmented and no overview exists. OBJECTIVES: To review the content, data quality, and research potential of the DNPR. METHODS: We examined the setting, history, aims, content, and classification systems of the DNPR. We searched PubMed and the Danish Medical Journal to create a bibliography of validation studies. We included also studies that were referenced in retrieved papers or known to us beforehand. Methodological considerations related to DNPR data were reviewed. RESULTS: During 1977-2012, the DNPR registered 8,085,603 persons, accounting for 7,268,857 inpatient, 5,953,405 outpatient, and 5,097,300 emergency department contacts. The DNPR provides nationwide longitudinal registration of detailed administrative and clinical data. It has recorded information on all patients discharged from Danish nonpsychiatric hospitals since 1977 and on psychiatric inpatients and emergency department and outpatient specialty clinic contacts since 1995. For each patient contact, one primary and optional secondary diagnoses are recorded according to the International Classification of Diseases. The DNPR provides a data source to identify diseases, examinations, certain in-hospital medical treatments, and surgical procedures. Long-term temporal trends in hospitalization and treatment rates can be studied. The positive predictive values of diseases and treatments vary widely (<15%-100%). The DNPR data are linkable at the patient level with data from other Danish administrative registries, clinical registries, randomized controlled trials, population surveys, and epidemiologic field studies - enabling researchers to reconstruct individual life and health trajectories for an entire population. CONCLUSION: The DNPR is a valuable tool for epidemiological research. However, both its strengths and limitations must be considered when interpreting research results, and continuous validation of its clinical data is essential.

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 · 10.2147/clep.s91125

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Schmidt, M., Schmidt, S. A. J., Sandegaard, J. L., Ehrenstein, V., Pedersen, L., & Sørensen, H. T.
Venue
Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-11
Volume
7
Pages
449
ISSN
1179-1349 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2147/clep.s91125
OpenAlex
W2219591537
Cited by
4,769
References
7
FWCI
313.74
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

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.