↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Positive predictive value of peptic ulcer diagnosis codes in the Danish National Patient Registry

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Epidemiology, May 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
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Positive predictive value of peptic ulcer diagnosis codes in the Danish National Patient Registry
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/clep.s132628
Pubmed ID
Authors

Søren Viborg, Kirstine Kobberøe Søgaard, Peter Jepsen

Abstract

Diagnoses of peptic ulcer are registered in the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) for administrative as well as research purposes, but it is unknown whether the coding validity depends on the location of the ulcer. To validate the International Classification of Diseases, 10(th) revision diagnosis codes of peptic ulcer in the DNPR by estimating positive predictive values (PPVs) for gastric and duodenal ulcer diagnoses. We identified all patients registered with a hospital discharge diagnosis of peptic ulcer from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, in 1995-2006. Among them, we randomly selected 200 who had an outpatient gastroscopy at the time of ulcer diagnosis. We reviewed the findings from these gastroscopies to confirm the presence of peptic ulcer and its location. We calculated PPVs and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of gastric and duodenal ulcer diagnoses, using descriptions from the gastroscopic examinations as standard reference. In total, 182 records (91%) were available for review. The overall PPV of peptic ulcer diagnoses in DNPR was 95.6% (95% CI 91.5-98.1), with PPVs of 90.3% (95% CI 82.4-95.5) for gastric ulcer diagnoses, and 94.4% (95% CI 87.4-98.2) for duodenal ulcer diagnoses. PPVs were constant over time. The PPV of uncomplicated peptic ulcer diagnoses in the DNPR is high, and the location of the ulcers is registered correctly in most cases, indicating that the diagnoses are useful for research purposes.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 32%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 2 11%
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 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#416
of 793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,630
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#12
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.