• Libraries
    • Log in to:
    View Item 
    •   MSpace Home
    • University of Manitoba Researchers
    • University of Manitoba Scholarship
    • View Item
    •   MSpace Home
    • University of Manitoba Researchers
    • University of Manitoba Scholarship
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

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

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    1471-2458-12-301.xml (84.10Kb)
    1471-2458-12-301.pdf (469.0Kb)
    Date
    2012-04-26
    Author
    Lix, Lisa M
    Azimaee, Mahmoud
    Osman, Beliz A
    Caetano, Patricia
    Morin, Suzanne
    Metge, Colleen
    Goltzman, David
    Kreiger, Nancy
    Prior, Jerilynn
    Leslie, William D
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    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.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/1993/7244
    DOI
    10.1186/1471-2458-12-301
    Collections
    • Rady Faculty of Health Sciences Scholarly Works [1296]
    • University of Manitoba Scholarship [2009]

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of MSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    Login

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    Atmire NV