↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Misclassification of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: validation of diagnostic codes

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Misclassification of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: validation of diagnostic codes
Published in
Clinical Epidemiology, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/clep.s139300
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Magnusson, Andreas Palm, Eva Branden, Stellan Mörner

Abstract

To validate diagnostic codes for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), analyze misclassfications, and estimate the prevalence of HCM in an unselected Swedish regional cohort. Using the hospitals' electronic medical records (used for the Swedish National Patient Register), we identified 136 patients from 2006 to 2016 with the HCM-related codes 142.1 and 142.2 (International Classification of Diseases). Of a total of 129 residents in the catchment area, 88 patients were correctly classified as HCM (positive predictive value 68.2%) and 41 patients (31.8%) were misclassified as HCM. Among the 88 HCM patients (52.2% males), 74 were alive and 14 were dead (15.9%). This yields an HCM prevalence of 74/183,337, that is, 4.0 diagnosed cases per 10,000 in the adult population aged ≥18 years. The underlying diagnoses of misclassified cases were mainly hypertension (31.7%) and aortic stenosis (22.0%). Other types of cardiomyopathies accounted for several cases of misclassification: dilated (nonischemic or ischemic), left ventricular noncompaction, and Takotsubo. Miscellaneous diagnoses were amyloidosis, pulmonary stenosis combined with ventricular septal defect, aortic insufficiency, athelete's heart, and atrioventricular conduction abnormality. The mean age was not significantly different between HCM and misclassified patients (65.8±15.8 vs 70.1±13.4 years; P=0.177). There were 47.8% females among HCM and 60.8% females among misclassified (P=0.118). One-third of patients diagnosed as HCM are misclassified, so registry data should be interpreted with caution. A correct diagnosis is important for decision-making and implementation of optimal HCM care; efforts should be made to increase awareness of HCM and diagnostic competence throughout the health care system.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Unspecified 2 5%
Mathematics 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,569,430
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#577
of 727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,070
of 317,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 727 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 317,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.