Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Mar;60(572):e128-36.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp10X483562.

Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review

Nada F Khan  1 , Sian E Harrison, Peter W Rose
Affiliations

Validity of diagnostic coding within the General Practice Research Database: a systematic review

Nada F Khan et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The UK-based General Practice Research Database (GPRD) is a valuable source of longitudinal primary care records and is increasingly used for epidemiological research.

Aim: To conduct a systematic review of the literature on accuracy and completeness of diagnostic coding in the GPRD.

Design of study: Systematic review.

Method: Six electronic databases were searched using search terms relating to the GPRD, in association with terms synonymous with validity, accuracy, concordance, and recording. A positive predictive value was calculated for each diagnosis that considered a comparison with a gold standard. Studies were also considered that compared the GPRD with other databases and national statistics.

Results: A total of 49 papers are included in this review. Forty papers conducted validation of a clinical diagnosis in the GPRD. When assessed against a gold standard (validation using GP questionnaire, primary care medical records, or hospital correspondence), most of the diagnoses were accurately recorded in the patient electronic record. Acute conditions were not as well recorded, with positive predictive values lower than 50%. Twelve papers compared prevalence or consultation rates in the GPRD against other primary care databases or national statistics. Generally, there was good agreement between disease prevalence and consultation rates between the GPRD and other datasets; however, rates of diabetes and musculoskeletal conditions were underestimated in the GPRD.

Conclusion: Most of the diagnoses coded in the GPRD are well recorded. Researchers using the GPRD may want to consider how well the disease of interest is recorded before planning research, and consider how to optimise the identification of clinical events.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of literature search results.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot reporting positive predictive values of diagnoses in the General Practice Research Database.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Jordan K, Porcheret M, Kadam UT, Croft P. The use of general practice consultation databases in rheumatology research. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45(2):126–128. - PubMed
    1. Walley T, Mantgani A. The UK General Practice Research Database. Lancet. 1997;350(9084):1097–1099. - PubMed
    1. Garcia Rodriguez LA, Perez GS. Use of the UK General Practice Research Database for pharmacoepidemiology. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;45(5):419–425. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. GPRD recording guidelines for vision users. London: Crown Copyright; 2004.
    1. Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Data quality assessment in GPRD. London: Crown Copyright; 2007.

Publication types

MeSH terms