Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of administrative data (by use of hospital discharge codes) for measuring comorbidity in patients with heart disease. One thousand seven hundred and sixty-five medical records of subjects admitted to hospital for AMI, unstable angina, angina pectoris, chronic IHD or heart failure were reviewed. The number and types of comorbidities were determined from the medical records (regarded as the "gold standard"). These were compared with the 10 discharge codes obtained from the hospital administrative records (referred to as the "administrative data"). The rate of false-negative and false-positive comorbidity diagnoses were determined. Twenty of the 21 comorbidities studied were underreported in the administrative data. For these 20 comorbidities, the median false-negative rate was 49.5% and ranged from 11% for diabetes to 100% for dementia. False-positive rates were low, less than 1.5%, except for chronic arrythmia (4.8%) and hypertension (4.2%). Mean percent agreement was high, ranging from 88% for hypertension to 100% for AIDS/HIV. Administrative data based on hospital discharge codes consistently underestimate the presence of comorbid conditions in our population. This has implications for administrators when estimating mortality, length of stay and disability. Researchers also need to be aware when using administrative data based on hospital discharge codes to assess subject's comorbidities that they may be widely underreported.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Powell, H., Lim, L. L., & Heller, R. F. (2001). Accuracy of administrative data to assess comorbidity in patients with heart disease. an Australian perspective. Journal of clinical epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00364-4

Vancouver

Powell H, Lim LL, Heller RF. Accuracy of administrative data to assess comorbidity in patients with heart disease. an Australian perspective. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2001. doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00364-4. PMID: 11438409.

BibTeX

@article{powell2001-11438409,
  author  = {Powell, H. and Lim, L. L. and Heller, R. F.},
  title   = {{Accuracy of administrative data to assess comorbidity in patients with heart disease. an Australian perspective}},
  journal = {Journal of clinical epidemiology},
  year    = {2001},
  doi     = {10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00364-4},
  pmid    = {11438409},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00364-4}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 40/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomized / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multicenter collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 23 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 40 of 100. Total 40 of 100.23 of the 58 points we could judge = 40 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical epidemiology)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2001 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded 0 / 2 No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 11438409)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 23 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100.
Total 40 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “deaths”

109 studies in the library carry the topic tag “deaths”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 109 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →