Back to Search
Start Over
Can mental health diagnoses in administrative data be used for research? A systematic review of the accuracy of routinely collected diagnoses
- Source :
- Davis, K, Sudlow, C & Hotopf, M 2016, ' Can mental health diagnoses in administrative data be used for research? A systematic review of the accuracy of routinely collected diagnoses ', BMC Psychiatry . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0963-x, Davis, K A S, Sudlow, C L M & Hotopf, M 2016, ' Can mental health diagnoses in administrative data be used for research? A systematic review of the accuracy of routinely collected diagnoses ', BMC Psychiatry, vol. 16, no. 1, 263 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0963-x, BMC Psychiatry
- Publication Year :
- 2016
- Publisher :
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2016.
-
Abstract
- Background There is increasing availability of data derived from diagnoses made routinely in mental health care, and interest in using these for research. Such data will be subject to both diagnostic (clinical) error and administrative error, and so it is necessary to evaluate its accuracy against a reference-standard. Our aim was to review studies where this had been done to guide the use of other available data. Methods We searched PubMed and EMBASE for studies comparing routinely collected mental health diagnosis data to a reference standard. We produced diagnostic category-specific positive predictive values (PPV) and Cohen’s kappa for each study. Results We found 39 eligible studies. Studies were heterogeneous in design, with a wide range of outcomes. Administrative error was small compared to diagnostic error. PPV was related to base rate of the respective condition, with overall median of 76 %. Kappa results on average showed a moderate agreement between source data and reference standard for most diagnostic categories (median kappa = 0.45–0.55); anxiety disorders and schizoaffective disorder showed poorer agreement. There was no significant benefit in accuracy for diagnoses made in inpatients. Conclusions The current evidence partly answered our questions. There was wide variation in the quality of source data, with a risk of publication bias. For some diagnoses, especially psychotic categories, administrative data were generally predictive of true diagnosis. For others, such as anxiety disorders, the data were less satisfactory. We discuss the implications of our findings, and the need for researchers to validate routine diagnostic data. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-016-0963-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
- Subjects :
- medicine.medical_specialty
Source data
Administrative data
Population research
Schizoaffective disorder
Case registers
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
Predictive Value of Tests
Diagnosis
medicine
Humans
Electronic health records
Diagnostic data
030212 general & internal medicine
Medical diagnosis
Psychiatry
Inpatients
Hospital episode statistics
business.industry
Mental Disorders
Research
Publication bias
medicine.disease
Mental health
Data Accuracy
030227 psychiatry
Psychiatry and Mental health
Research Design
Family medicine
Anxiety
medicine.symptom
business
Kappa
Research Article
Subjects
Details
- ISSN :
- 1471244X
- Volume :
- 16
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- BMC Psychiatry
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....af469129b9d162f4f8480fafb9c697c5