Evidence Hub

Validity of ankylosing spondylitis and undifferentiated spondyloarthritis diagnoses in the Swedish National Patient Register

Lindström U, Exarchou S, Sigurdardottir V, Sundström B, Askling J, Eriksson JK, Forsblad-d'Elia H, Turesson C et al.

Scandinavian journal of rheumatology, 2015

20,089 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Epidemiological studies of spondyloarthritis (SpA), using ICD codes from the Swedish National Patient Register (NPR), offer unique possibilities but hinge upon an understanding of the validity of the codes. The aim of this study was to validate the ICD codes for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and undifferentiated SpA (uSpA) in the NPR against the established classification criteria [modified New York (mNY), Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS), Amor, and European Spondyloarthropathy Study Group (ESSG) criteria].

METHOD: All patients with an ICD-8/9/10 code of AS or uSpA in the NPR 1966-2009 at a visit to a specialist in rheumatology or internal medicine or corresponding hospitalization, alive and living in Sweden 2009, were identified (n=20,089). Following a structured procedure to achieve geographical representativeness, 500 random patients with a diagnosis of AS or uSpA in 2007-2009 were selected. Based on a structured review of clinical records, positive predictive values (PPVs) for fulfilling the criteria sets were calculated.

RESULTS: For those having received an ICD code for AS, the PPVs for fulfilling the mNY criteria or any set of SpA criteria were 70% and 89%, respectively. For those with an uSpA diagnosis (and never an AS diagnosis), the corresponding PPVs were 20% and 79%. The subset with both AS and uSpA diagnoses (overlap=12%) were as likely to fulfil the mNY criteria as the group that had been coded as AS only.

CONCLUSIONS: The…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 20,089 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free