Osteoporosis-related fracture case definitions for population-based administrative data

Thumbnail Image
Lix, Lisa M
Azimaee, Mahmoud
Osman, Beliz A
Caetano, Patricia
Morin, Suzanne
Metge, Colleen
Goltzman, David
Kreiger, Nancy
Prior, Jerilynn
Leslie, William D
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
AbstractBackgroundPopulation-based administrative data have been used to study osteoporosis-related fracture risk factors and outcomes, but there has been limited research about the validity of these data for ascertaining fracture cases. The objectives of this study were to: (a) compare fracture incidence estimates from administrative data with estimates from population-based clinically-validated data, and (b) test for differences in incidence estimates from multiple administrative data case definitions.MethodsThirty-five case definitions for incident fractures of the hip, wrist, humerus, and clinical vertebrae were constructed using diagnosis codes in hospital data and diagnosis and service codes in physician billing data from Manitoba, Canada. Clinically-validated fractures were identified from the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos). Generalized linear models were used to test for differences in incidence estimates.ResultsFor hip fracture, sex-specific differences were observed in the magnitude of under- and over-ascertainment of administrative data case definitions when compared with CaMos data. The length of the fracture-free period to ascertain incident cases had a variable effect on over-ascertainment across fracture sites, as did the use of imaging, fixation, or repair service codes. Case definitions based on hospital data resulted in under-ascertainment of incident clinical vertebral fractures. There were no significant differences in trend estimates for wrist, humerus, and clinical vertebral case definitions.ConclusionsThe validity of administrative data for estimating fracture incidence depends on the site and features of the case definition.
BMC Public Health. 2012 Apr 26;12(1):301