A comparison of administrative versus clinical data : coronary artery bypass surgery as an example.
Health services researchers rely heavily on administrative data bases, but incomplete or incorrect coding may bias risk models based on administrative data.
The best method for validating administrative data is to collect detailed information about the same cases from independent sources, but this approach may be too costly or technically difficult.
We used data on coronary artery bypass surgery from four sites (Duke University; Minneapolis-St Paul; California; and Manitoba) to demonstrate an alternative approach for assessing diagnostic coding and to explore the implications of miscoding.
The first two sites have clinical data; the second two have administrative data.
Mots-clés Pascal : Source information, Dossier médical, Registre, Association morbide, Dérivation, Artère coronaire, Pronostic, Codage, Etude comparative, Homme, Recherche scientifique, Méthodologie, Epidémiologie, Biais, Appareil circulatoire pathologie, Chirurgie, Cardiopathie coronaire
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Information source, Medical record, Register, Concomitant disease, Bypass, Coronary artery, Prognosis, Coding, Comparative study, Human, Scientific research, Methodology, Epidemiology, Bias, Cardiovascular disease, Surgery, Coronary heart disease
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 94-0314110
Code Inist : 002B30A01A1. Création : 199406.