↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Evaluation of ICD-10 algorithms to identify hypopituitary patients in the Danish National Patient Registry

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of ICD-10 algorithms to identify hypopituitary patients in the Danish National Patient Registry
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/clep.s124340
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agnethe Berglund, Morten Olsen, Marianne Andersen, Eigil Husted Nielsen, Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen, Caroline Kistorp, Claus Højbjerg Gravholt, Kirstine Stochhholm

Abstract

Routinely collected health data may be valuable sources for conducting research. This study aimed to evaluate the validity of algorithms detecting hypopituitary patients in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) using medical records as reference standard. Patients with International Classification of Diseases (10th edition [ICD-10]) diagnoses of hypopituitarism, or other diagnoses of pituitary disorders assumed to be associated with an increased risk of hypopituitarism, recorded in the DNPR during 2000-2012 were identified. Medical records were reviewed to confirm or disprove hypopituitarism. Hypopituitarism was confirmed in 911 patients. In a candidate population of 1,661, this yielded an overall positive predictive value (PPV) of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.4-57.3). Using algorithms searching for patients recorded at least one, three or five times with a diagnosis of hypopituitarism (E23.0x) and/or at least once with a diagnosis of postprocedural hypopituitarism (E89.3x), PPVs gradually increased from 73.3% (95% CI: 70.6-75.8) to 83.3% (95% CI: 80.7-85.7). Completeness for the same algorithms, however, decreased from 90.8% (95% CI: 88.7-92.6) to 82.9% (95% CI: 80.3-85.3) respectively. Including data of hormone replacement in the same algorithms PPVs increased from 73.2% (95% CI: 70.6-75.7) to 82.6% (95% CI: 80.1-84.9) and completeness decreased from 94.3% (95% CI: 92.6-95.7) to 89.7% (95% CI: 87.5-91.6) with increasing records of E23.0x. The DNPR is a valuable data source to identify hypopituitary patients using a search criteria of at least five records of E23.0x and/or at least one record of E89.3x. Completeness is increased when including hormone replacement data in the algorithm. The consequences of misclassification must, however, always be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 6 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 February 2017.
All research outputs
#14,331,382
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#429
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,880
of 420,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.