Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
Skip to main content

Introduction: Prospective, population-based studies can be rich resources for dementia research. Follow-up in many such studies is through linkage to routinely collected, coded health-care data sets. We evaluated the accuracy of these data sets for dementia case identification. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature for studies comparing dementia coding in routinely collected data sets to any expert-led reference standard. We recorded study characteristics and two accuracy measures—positive predictive value (PPV) and sensitivity. Results: We identified 27 eligible studies with 25 estimating PPV and eight estimating sensitivity. Study settings and methods varied widely. For all-cause dementia, PPVs ranged from 33%–100%, but 16/27 were .75%. Sensitivities ranged from 21% to 86%. PPVs for Alzheimer’s disease (range 57%–100%) were generally higher than those for vascular dementia (range 19%–91%). Discussion: Linkage to routine health-care data can achieve a high PPVand reasonable sensitivity in certain settings. Given the heterogeneity in accuracy estimates, cohorts should ideally conduct their own setting-specific validation.

Original publication Download

DOI

10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.016

Type

Journal article

Publisher

Elsevier

Publication Date

2018

Pages

1038 - 1051