Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: A systematic review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: A systematic review
Do you wish to request the book?
Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: A systematic review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Quality of the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register: A systematic review
2012
Overview
Aims: The Finnish Hospital Discharge Register (FHDR) is one of the oldest individual level hospital discharge registers and has been intensively used for research purposes. The aim of this study was to gather information concerning the quality of FHDR into one place in terms of a systematic review of validation studies that compare data to external information. Methods: Several reference databases were searched for validity articles published until January 2012. For each included study, focus of validation, register years examined, number of compared observations, external source(s) of data, summary of validation results, and conclusions concerning the validity of FHDR were extracted. Results: In total, 32 different studies comparing FHDR data to external information were identified. Most of the studies examined validity in the case of vascular disease, mental disorders or injuries. More than 95% of discharges could be identified from the register. Positive predictive value (PPV) for common diagnoses was between 75 and 99%. Conclusions: Completeness and accuracy in the register seem to vary from satisfactory to very good in the register as long as the recognised limitations are taking into account. Poor recording of subsidiary diagnoses and secondary operations and other rarely used items are the most obvious limitations in validity, but do not compromise the value of data in FHDR in being used in studies that are not feasible to conduct otherwise.
Publisher
SAGE,SAGE Publications,Sage Publications
