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

Background: Population-based, prospective studies can provide important insights into Parkinson's disease (PD) and other parkinsonian disorders. Participant follow-up in such studies is often achieved through linkage to routinely-collected healthcare datasets. We systematically reviewed the published literature on the accuracy of these datasets for this purpose. Methods: We searched four electronic databases for published studies that compared PD and parkinsonism cases identified using routinely-collected data to a reference standard. We extracted study characteristics and two accuracy measures: positive predictive value (PPV) and/or sensitivity. Results: We identified 18 articles, resulting in 27 measures of PPV and 14 of sensitivity. For PD, PPVs ranged from 56-90% in hospital datasets, 53-87% in prescription datasets, 81-90% in primary care datasets and was 67% in mortality datasets. Combining diagnostic and medication codes increased PPV. For parkinsonism, PPVs ranged from 36-88% in hospital datasets, 40-74% in prescription datasets, and was 94% in mortality datasets. Sensitivities ranged from 15-73% in single datasets for PD and 43-63% in single datasets for parkinsonism. Conclusions: In many settings, routinely-collected datasets generate good PPVs and reasonable sensitivities for identifying PD and parkinsonism cases. Further research is warranted to investigate primary care and medication datasets, and to develop algorithms that balance a high PPV with acceptable sensitivity.

More information

Publisher

bioRxiv

Publication Date

2018

Keywords

Parkinson's disease, routinely-collected healthcare data