Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of identifying atrial fibrillation using administrative data: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ren Jie Robert Yao,1 Jason G Andrade,1 Marc W Deyell,1 Heather Jackson,2 Finlay A McAlister,3 Nathaniel M Hawkins11Division of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 2Cardiac Services British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 3Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, CanadaCorrespondence: Nathaniel M HawkinsUniversity of British Columbia, BC Centre for Improved Cardiovascular Health, St. Paul’s Hospital, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, CanadaTel +1 604 875 4111Fax +1 604 875 5504Email nat.hawkins@ubc.caIntroduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the commonest arrhythmia and a major cause of stroke and health care utilization. Researchers and administrators use electronic health data to assess disease burden, quality and variance in care, value of interventions and prognosis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the validity of AF case definitions in administrative databases.Methods: Medline was searched from 2000 to 2018. Extracted information included sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for various AF case definitions. Estimates were pooled using random-effects models due to significant heterogeneity between studies.Results: We identified 24 studies, including 21 from North America or Scandinavia. Hospital, ambulatory and mixed data sources were assessed in 10, 4 and 10 studies, respectively. Nine different AF case definitions were evaluated, most based on ICD-9 or 10 codes. Twenty-two studies assessed case definitions in patients diagnosed with AF and thus could generate PPV alone. Half the studies sampled unrestricted populations including a mix of those with and without AF to assess sensitivity. Only 13 studies included ECG confirmation as a gold standard. The pooled random effects estimates were: sensitivity 80% (95% CI 72–86%); specificity 98% (96–99%); PPV 88% (82–94%); NPV 97% (94–99%). Only 3 studies reported all accuracy parameters and included rhythm monitoring in the gold standard definition.Conclusion: Relatively few studies examined sensitivity, and fewer still included rhythm monitoring in the gold standard comparison. Administrative data may fail to identify a significant proportion of patients with AF. This, in turn, may bias estimates of quality of care and prognosis.Keywords: atrial fibrillation, registries, validation studies, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".