Key result
Routine hospital discharge data overestimates first MI incidence by ~22% compared to linked registers.
Why the study?
Routinely collected hospital morbidity data for AMI include recurrent events and double counting, potentially biasing incidence estimates compared to linked register data excluding these cases.
Observational (n=41,979)
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Caution advised with routine discharge data for MI incidence; leaves open need for linked validation in registry research.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare levels of and trends in incidence and hospital mortality of first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on routinely collected hospital morbidity data and on linked registers. Cases taken from routine hospital data are a mix of patients with recurrent and first events, and double counting occurs when cases are admitted for an event several times during 1 year. By linkage of registers, recurrent events and double counts can be excluded. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In 1995 and 2000, 28,733 and 25,864 admissions for AMI were registered in the Dutch national hospital discharge register. Linkage with the population register yielded 21,565 patients with a first AMI in 1995 and 20,414 in 2000. RESULTS: In 1995 and 2000, the incidence based on the hospital register was higher than based on the linked registers in men (22% and 23% higher) and women (18% and 20% higher). In both years, hospital mortality based on the hospital register and on linked registers was similar. The decline in incidence between 1995 and 2000 was comparable whether based on standard hospital register data or linked data (18% and 20% in men, 15% and 17% in women). Similarly, the decline in hospital mortality was comparable using either approach (11% and 9% in both men and women). CONCLUSION: Although the incidence based on routine hospital data overestimates the actual incidence of first AMI based on linked registers, hospital mortality and trends in incidence and hospital mortality are not changed by excluding recurrent events and double counts. Since trends in incidence and hospital mortality of AMI are often based on national routinely collected data, it is reassuring that our results indicate that findings from such studies are indeed valid and not biased because of recurrent events and double counts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Koek et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (n=41,979). Routine hospital discharge register data vs. Linked national registers (excluding recurrent events and double counts) was evaluated on Adjusted incidence of acute myocardial infarction (men, 1995) (IRR 1.22, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.25). Routine hospital discharge data overestimated the actual incidence of first acute myocardial infarction by 22% in men and 18% in women compared to linked registers, though hospital mortality trends were unaffected.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: