Advertisement

 

 

Systematic Analysis of Self-Reported Comorbidities in Large Cohort Studies – A Novel Stepwise Approach by Evaluation of Medication.

Systematic Analysis of Self-Reported Comorbidities in Large Cohort Studies – A Novel Stepwise Approach by Evaluation of Medication.
Author Information (click to view)

Lucke T, Herrera R, Wacker M, Holle R, Biertz F, Nowak D, Huber RM, Söhler S, Vogelmeier C, Ficker JH, Mückter H, Jörres RA, ,


Lucke T, Herrera R, Wacker M, Holle R, Biertz F, Nowak D, Huber RM, Söhler S, Vogelmeier C, Ficker JH, Mückter H, Jörres RA, , (click to view)

Lucke T, Herrera R, Wacker M, Holle R, Biertz F, Nowak D, Huber RM, Söhler S, Vogelmeier C, Ficker JH, Mückter H, Jörres RA, ,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

PloS one 2016 Oct 2811(10) e0163408 doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0163408
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
In large cohort studies comorbidities are usually self-reported by the patients. This way to collect health information only represents conditions known, memorized and openly reported by the patients. Several studies addressed the relationship between self-reported comorbidities and medical records or pharmacy data, but none of them provided a structured, documented method of evaluation. We thus developed a detailed procedure to compare self-reported comorbidities with information on comorbidities derived from medication inspection. This was applied to the data of the German COPD cohort COSYCONET.

METHODS
Approach I was based solely on ICD10-Codes for the diseases and the indications of medications. To overcome the limitations due to potential non-specificity of medications, Approach II was developed using more detailed information, such as ATC-Codes specific for one disease. The relationship between reported comorbidities and medication was expressed by a four-level concordance score.

RESULTS
Approaches I and II demonstrated that the patterns of concordance scores markedly differed between comorbidities in the COSYCONET data. On average, Approach I resulted in more than 50% concordance of all reported diseases to at least one medication. The more specific Approach II showed larger differences in the matching with medications, due to large differences in the disease-specificity of drugs. The highest concordance was achieved for diabetes and three combined cardiovascular disorders, while it was substantial for dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia, and low for asthma.

CONCLUSION
Both approaches represent feasible strategies to confirm self-reported diagnoses via medication. Approach I covers a broad spectrum of diseases and medications but is limited regarding disease-specificity. Approach II uses the information from medications specific for a single disease and therefore can reach higher concordance scores. The strategies described in a detailed and reproducible manner are generally applicable in large studies and might be useful to extract as much information as possible from the available data.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fourteen − eight =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]