Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Validation Studies on a Diabetes Case Definition from Health Administrative Records

Aaron Leong, Kaberi Dasgupta, Sasha Bernatsky, Diane Lacaille, Antonio Avina-Zubieta and Elham Rahme

PLOS ONE, 2013, vol. 8, issue 10, 1-11

Abstract: Objectives: Health administrative data are frequently used for diabetes surveillance. We aimed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of a commonly-used diabetes case definition (two physician claims or one hospital discharge abstract record within a two-year period) and their potential effect on prevalence estimation. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched Medline (from 1950) and Embase (from 1980) databases for validation studies through August 2012 (keywords: “diabetes mellitus”; “administrative databases”; “validation studies”). Reviewers abstracted data with standardized forms and assessed quality using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria. A generalized linear model approach to random-effects bivariate regression meta-analysis was used to pool sensitivity and specificity estimates. We applied correction factors derived from pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates to prevalence estimates from national surveillance reports and projected prevalence estimates over 10 years (to 2018). Results: The search strategy identified 1423 abstracts among which 11 studies were deemed relevant and reviewed; 6 of these reported sensitivity and specificity allowing pooling in a meta-analysis. Compared to surveys or medical records, sensitivity was 82.3% (95%CI 75.8, 87.4) and specificity was 97.9% (95%CI 96.5, 98.8). The diabetes case definition underestimated prevalence when it was ≤10.6% and overestimated prevalence otherwise. Conclusion: The diabetes case definition examined misses up to one fifth of diabetes cases and wrongly identifies diabetes in approximately 2% of the population. This may be sufficiently sensitive and specific for surveillance purposes, in particular monitoring prevalence trends. Applying correction factors to adjust prevalence estimates from this definition may be helpful to increase accuracy of estimates.

Date: 2013
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075256 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 75256&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0075256

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075256

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().