
This study assessed the validity of a widely-accepted administrative data surveillance methodology for identifying individuals with diabetes relative to three laboratory data reference standard definitions for diabetes.We used a combination of linked regional data (hospital discharge abstracts and physician data) and laboratory data to test the validity of administrative data surveillance definitions for diabetes relative to a laboratory data reference standard. The administrative discharge data methodology includes two definitions for diabetes: a strict administrative data definition of one hospitalization code or two physician claims indicating diabetes; and a more liberal definition of one hospitalization code or a single physician claim. The laboratory data, meanwhile, produced three reference standard definitions based on glucose levels +/- HbA1c levels.Sensitivities ranged from 68.4% to 86.9% for the administrative data definitions tested relative to the three laboratory data reference standards. Sensitivities were higher for the more liberal administrative data definition. Positive predictive values (PPV), meanwhile, ranged from 53.0% to 88.3%, with the liberal administrative data definition producing lower PPVs.These findings demonstrate the trade-offs of sensitivity and PPV for selecting diabetes surveillance definitions. Centralized laboratory data may be of value to future surveillance initiatives that use combined data sources to optimize case detection.
Blood Glucose, Glycated Hemoglobin, Data Collection, Reproducibility of Results, Glucose Tolerance Test, Alberta, Insurance Claim Review, Population Groups, Population Surveillance, Confidence Intervals, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Medical Record Linkage, Algorithms
Blood Glucose, Glycated Hemoglobin, Data Collection, Reproducibility of Results, Glucose Tolerance Test, Alberta, Insurance Claim Review, Population Groups, Population Surveillance, Confidence Intervals, Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Medical Record Linkage, Algorithms
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 43 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
