Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Validation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease recording in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD-GOLD)
  1. Jennifer K Quint1,
  2. Hana Müllerova2,
  3. Rachael L DiSantostefano3,
  4. Harriet Forbes1,
  5. Susan Eaton4,
  6. John R Hurst5,
  7. Kourtney Davis2,
  8. Liam Smeeth1
  1. 1Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
  2. 2Department of Respiratory Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Uxbridge, UK
  3. 3Department of Respiratory Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, ResearchTriangle Park, North Carolina, USA
  4. 4Clinical Practice Research Datalink Group, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK
  5. 5Department of UCL Respiratory Medicine, Royal Free Campus, University College London Medical School, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Jennifer K Quint; Jennifer.quint{at}lshtm.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives The optimal method of identifying people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from electronic primary care records is not known. We assessed the accuracy of different approaches using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK electronic health record database.

Setting 951 participants registered with a CPRD practice in the UK between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2012. Individuals were selected for ≥1 of 8 algorithms to identify people with COPD. General practitioners were sent a brief questionnaire and additional evidence to support a COPD diagnosis was requested. All information received was reviewed independently by two respiratory physicians whose opinion was taken as the gold standard.

Primary outcome measure The primary measure of accuracy was the positive predictive value (PPV), the proportion of people identified by each algorithm for whom COPD was confirmed.

Results 951 questionnaires were sent and 738 (78%) returned. After quality control, 696 (73.2%) patients were included in the final analysis. All four algorithms including a specific COPD diagnostic code performed well. Using a diagnostic code alone, the PPV was 86.5% (77.5–92.3%) while requiring a diagnosis plus spirometry plus specific medication; the PPV was slightly higher at 89.4% (80.7–94.5%) but reduced case numbers by 10%. Algorithms without specific diagnostic codes had low PPVs (range 12.2–44.4%).

Conclusions Patients with COPD can be accurately identified from UK primary care records using specific diagnostic codes. Requiring spirometry or COPD medications only marginally improved accuracy. The high accuracy applies since the introduction of an incentivised disease register for COPD as part of Quality and Outcomes Framework in 2004.

  • RESPIRATORY MEDICINE (see Thoracic Medicine)
  • THORACIC MEDICINE

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Supplementary materials

  • Supplementary Data

    This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Files in this Data Supplement:

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.