FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Acta veterinaria Scandinavica2009; 51(1); 50; doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-51-50

Validation of computerized diagnostic information in a clinical database from a national equine clinic network.

Abstract: Computerized diagnostic information offers potential for epidemiological research; however data accuracy must be addressed. The principal aim of this study was to evaluate the completeness and correctness of diagnostic information in a computerized equine clinical database compared to corresponding hand written veterinary clinical records, used as gold standard, and to assess factors related to correctness. Further, the aim was to investigate completeness (epidemiologic sensitivity), correctness (positive predictive value), specificity and prevalence for diagnoses for four body systems and correctness for affected limb information for four joint diseases. Methods: A random sample of 450 visits over the year 2002 (nvisits=49,591) was taken from 18 nation wide clinics headed under one company. Computerized information for the visits selected and copies of the corresponding veterinary clinical records were retrieved. Completeness and correctness were determined using semi-subjective criteria. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with correctness for diagnosis. Results: Three hundred and ninety six visits had veterinary clinical notes that were retrievable. The overall completeness and correctness were 91% and 92%, respectively; both values considered high. Descriptive analyses showed significantly higher degree of correctness for first visits compared to follow up visits and for cases with a diagnostic code recorded in the veterinary records compared to those with no code noted. The correctness was similar regardless of usage category (leisure/sport horse, racing trotter and racing thoroughbred) or gender.For the four body systems selected (joints, skin and hooves, respiratory, skeletal) the completeness varied between 71% (respiration) and 91% (joints) and the correctness ranged from 87% (skin and hooves) to 96% (respiration), whereas the specificity was >95% for all systems. Logistic regression showed that correctness was associated with type of visit, whether an explicit diagnostic code was present in the veterinary clinical record, and body system. Correctness for information on affected limb was 95% and varied with joint. Conclusions: Based on the overall high level of correctness and completeness the database was considered useful for research purposes. For the body systems investigated the highest level of completeness and correctness was seen for joints and respiration, respectively.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2009-12-10 PubMed ID: 20003256PubMed Central: PMC2801496DOI: 10.1186/1751-0147-51-50Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This study is focused on assessing the accuracy and completeness of diagnostic information in a computerized database for equine clinical data, comparing it with handwritten veterinary records. The findings indicate a high degree of completeness and correctness in the digital database, marking it as a valuable resource for research purposes.

Approach and Methods

  • The researchers selected a random sample of 450 visits from 18 nationwide clinics that occurred in 2002. They then compared the digital data for these visits with the handwritten veterinary records to determine accuracy and completeness.
  • Using semi-subjective criteria, completeness and correctness were measured and compared.
  • The study investigated completeness (epidemiologic sensitivity), correctness (positive predictive value), specificity and prevalence for diagnoses relating to four body systems: joints, skin and hooves, respiratory, and skeletal systems.
  • The researchers also checked the correctness of data relating to the affected limb information for four joint diseases.
  • A logistic regression model was used to study factors associated with the accuracy of the diagnoses.

Results

  • The study found that the overall accuracy and completeness of the electronic data were 92% and 91% respectively, considered quite high.
  • First visit data were more accurate when compared to follow-up visits and cases where a diagnostic code was recorded in the veterinary records.
  • The correctness of data didn’t vary based on the category of use (leisure/sport horse, racing trotter, and racing thoroughbred) or the gender of the horse.
  • Among the selected body systems, completeness varied between 71% (respiration) and 91% (joints), and correctness ranged from 87% (skin and hooves) to 96% (respiration).
  • Specificity was greater than 95% for all systems.
  • The study’s logistic regression showed that correctness was connected to the type of visit, the presence of an explicit diagnostic code in the veterinary clinical record, and the body system.
  • The correctness for information on the affected limb was at 95% and varied with the joint.

Conclusions

  • Considering the high degree of accuracy and completeness, the researchers concluded that the digital database was useful for research purposes.
  • Among the body systems investigated, the highest level of completeness was seen for joints, and the highest level of correctness was noticed for respiration.

Cite This Article

APA
Penell JC, Bonnett BN, Pringle J, Egenvall A. (2009). Validation of computerized diagnostic information in a clinical database from a national equine clinic network. Acta Vet Scand, 51(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0147-51-50

Publication

Acta veterinaria Scandinavica
ISSN: 1751-0147
NlmUniqueID: 0370400
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 51
Issue: 1
Pages: 50

Researcher Affiliations

Penell, Johanna C
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, PO Box 7054, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. Johanna.Penell@kv.slu.se
Bonnett, Brenda N
    Pringle, John
      Egenvall, Agneta

        MeSH Terms

        • Animals
        • Databases, Factual / standards
        • Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / standards
        • Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted / veterinary
        • Female
        • Horse Diseases / diagnosis
        • Horses
        • Logistic Models
        • Male
        • Reproducibility of Results
        • Sensitivity and Specificity
        • Sweden

        References

        This article includes 34 references
        1. Lawrenson R, Williams T, Farmer R. Clinical information for research; the use of general practice databases.. J Public Health Med 1999 Sep;21(3):299-304.
          doi: 10.1093/pubmed/21.3.299pubmed: 10528957google scholar: lookup
        2. Miller DR, Wang F, West W, Safford M, Pogach L. Using computerized medical records to estimate disease prevalence in a dynamic population: Diabetes in the VA. Am J Epidemiol 2002;155:s75–s75.
          doi: 10.1093/aje/155.6.534google scholar: lookup
        3. Hamilton W, Lancashire R, Sharp D, Peters TJ, Cheng K, Marshall T. The risk of colorectal cancer with symptoms at different ages and between the sexes: a case-control study.. BMC Med 2009 Apr 17;7:17.
          doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-17pmc: PMC2675533pubmed: 19374736google scholar: lookup
        4. Culp WT, Zeldis TE, Reese MS, Drobatz KJ. Primary bacterial peritonitis in dogs and cats: 24 cases (1990-2006).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2009 Apr 1;234(7):906-13.
          doi: 10.2460/javma.234.7.906pubmed: 19335241google scholar: lookup
        5. Egenvall A, Penell JC, Bonnett BN, Olson P, Pringle J. Morbidity of Swedish horses insured for veterinary care between 1997 and 2000: variations with age, sex, breed and location.. Vet Rec 2005 Oct 8;157(15):436-43.
          pubmed: 16215244doi: 10.1136/vr.157.15.436google scholar: lookup
        6. Hennessy S, Bilker WB, Weber A, Strom BL. Descriptive analyses of the integrity of a US Medicaid claims database.. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003 Mar;12(2):103-11.
          doi: 10.1002/pds.765pubmed: 12647699google scholar: lookup
        7. Lewis JD, Brensinger C, Bilker WB, Strom BL. Validity and completeness of the General Practice Research Database for studies of inflammatory bowel disease.. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002 Apr-May;11(3):211-8.
          doi: 10.1002/pds.698pubmed: 12051120google scholar: lookup
        8. Lawrenson R, Todd JC, Leydon GM, Williams TJ, Farmer RD. Validation of the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in general practice database studies.. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000 Jun;49(6):591-6.
          doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2125.2000.00199.xpmc: PMC2015047pubmed: 10848723google scholar: lookup
        9. Ray WA, Griffin MR, Fought RL, Adams ML. Identification of fractures from computerized Medicare files.. J Clin Epidemiol 1992 Jul;45(7):703-14.
          doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90047-Qpubmed: 1619449google scholar: lookup
        10. Fombonne E, Heavey L, Smeeth L, Rodrigues LC, Cook C, Smith PG, Meng L, Hall AJ. Validation of the diagnosis of autism in general practitioner records.. BMC Public Health 2004 Mar 3;4:5.
          doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-4-5pmc: PMC394332pubmed: 15113435google scholar: lookup
        11. Roos LL, Sharp SM, Cohen MM. Comparing clinical information with claims data: some similarities and differences.. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44(9):881-8.
          doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90050-Jpubmed: 1890430google scholar: lookup
        12. Pilpel D, Fraser GM, Kosecoff J, Brook RH. Validation of a centrally maintained computerized hospital database: comparison with operating room logbooks.. Isr J Med Sci 1993 May;29(5):287-91.
          pubmed: 8314689
        13. Hassey A, Gerrett D, Wilson A. A survey of validity and utility of electronic patient records in a general practice.. BMJ 2001 Jun 9;322(7299):1401-5.
          doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7299.1401pmc: PMC32256pubmed: 11397747google scholar: lookup
        14. Levine JM, Ngheim PP, Levine GJ, Cohen ND. Associations of sex, breed, and age with cervical vertebral compressive myelopathy in horses: 811 cases (1974-2007).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008 Nov 1;233(9):1453-8.
          doi: 10.2460/javma.233.9.1453pubmed: 18980501google scholar: lookup
        15. Couëtil LL, Ward MP. Analysis of risk factors for recurrent airway obstruction in North American horses: 1,444 cases (1990-1999).. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2003 Dec 1;223(11):1645-50.
          doi: 10.2460/javma.2003.223.1645pubmed: 14664454google scholar: lookup
        16. Dugdale AH, Langford J, Senior JM, Proudman CJ. The effect of inotropic and/or vasopressor support on postoperative survival following equine colic surgery.. Vet Anaesth Analg 2007 Mar;34(2):82-8.
          doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2006.00299.xpubmed: 17316388google scholar: lookup
        17. Mohammed HO, Rebhun WC, Antczak DF. Factors associated with the risk of developing sarcoid tumours in horses.. Equine Vet J 1992 May;24(3):165-8.
          pubmed: 1606927doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.1992.tb02808.xgoogle scholar: lookup
        18. Pollari FL, Bonnett BN, Allen DG, Bamsey SC, Martin SW. Quality of computerized medical record abstract data at a veterinary teaching hospital. Prev Vet Med 1996;27:141–154.
          doi: 10.1016/0167-5877(95)01004-1google scholar: lookup
        19. Mörk M, Lindberg A, Alenius S, Vågsholm I, Egenvall A. Comparison between dairy cow disease incidence in data registered by farmers and in data from a disease-recording system based on veterinary reporting.. Prev Vet Med 2009 Apr 1;88(4):298-307.
          doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.12.005pmc: PMC7114122pubmed: 19178966google scholar: lookup
        20. Egenvall A, Bonnett BN, Olson P, Hedhammar A. Validation of computerized Swedish dog and cat insurance data against veterinary practice records.. Prev Vet Med 1998 Jul 17;36(1):51-65.
          doi: 10.1016/S0167-5877(98)00073-7pubmed: 9677627google scholar: lookup
        21. Nødtvedt A, Bergvall K, Emanuelson U, Egenvall A. Canine atopic dermatitis: validation of recorded diagnosis against practice records in 335 insured Swedish dogs.. Acta Vet Scand 2006 Jun 15;48(1):8.
          doi: 10.1186/1751-0147-48-8pmc: PMC1553461pubmed: 16987404google scholar: lookup
        22. Penell JC, Egenvall A, Bonnett BN, Pringle J. Validation of computerized Swedish horse insurance data against veterinary clinical records.. Prev Vet Med 2007 Dec 14;82(3-4):236-51.
          doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.05.020pubmed: 17644201google scholar: lookup
        23. Swedish Animal Hospital Association O. Diagnostic registry for the horse, the dog and the cat (Diagnosregister för häst, hund och katt). Tåberg, Tåbergs tryckeri, Sweden. 1993;1.
        24. Penell JC, Egenvall A, Bonnett BN, Olson P, Pringle J. Specific causes of morbidity among Swedish horses insured for veterinary care between 1997 and 2000.. Vet Rec 2005 Oct 15;157(16):470-7.
          pubmed: 16227382doi: 10.1136/vr.157.16.470google scholar: lookup
        25. Dohoo I, Martin W, Stryhn H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada: AVC inc; 2003. Screening and diagnostic tests; pp. 85–120.
        26. Dohoo I MW, Stryhn H. Veterinary Epidemiologic Research. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada: AVC inc; 2003. Mixed Models for Discrete Data; pp. 499–520.
        27. Snijders T, Bosker R. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London: SAGE; 1999.
        28. Hosmer DW LS. Applied Logistic Regression. Second. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2000. Assessing the Fit of the Model; pp. 143–202.
        29. Brouwer H, Schouten EG, Noordhuizen JP, van Voorthuysen PF. [Possibilities of epidemiological studies via automated veterinary practice administration].. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd 1995 May 15;120(10):296-9.
          pubmed: 7761967
        30. Lloyd SS, Rissing JP. Physician and coding errors in patient records.. JAMA 1985 Sep 13;254(10):1330-6.
          doi: 10.1001/jama.254.10.1330pubmed: 3927014google scholar: lookup
        31. Jordan K, Porcheret M, Croft P. Quality of morbidity coding in general practice computerized medical records: a systematic review.. Fam Pract 2004 Aug;21(4):396-412.
          doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh409pubmed: 15249528google scholar: lookup
        32. Pringle M, Ward P, Chilvers C. Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of computer medical records in four practices committed to recording data on computer.. Br J Gen Pract 1995 Oct;45(399):537-41.
          pmc: PMC1239405pubmed: 7492423
        33. Cole FL, Hodgson DR, Reid SW, Mellor DJ. Owner-reported equine health disorders: results of an Australia-wide postal survey.. Aust Vet J 2005 Aug;83(8):490-5.
          doi: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2005.tb13301.xpubmed: 16119422google scholar: lookup
        34. Clarke P. When can group level clustering be ignored? Multilevel models versus single-level models with sparse data.. J Epidemiol Community Health 2008 Aug;62(8):752-8.
          doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.060798pubmed: 18621963google scholar: lookup

        Citations

        This article has been cited 1 times.
        1. Egenvall A, Bonnett BN, Häggström J, Ström Holst B, Möller L, Nødtvedt A. Morbidity of insured Swedish cats during 1999-2006 by age, breed, sex, and diagnosis. J Feline Med Surg 2010 Dec;12(12):948-59.
          doi: 10.1016/j.jfms.2010.08.008pubmed: 21055987google scholar: lookup
        Subscribe to our newsletter
        Join 99,727 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.