Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorEastwood, SVen_US
dc.contributor.authorMathur, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorAtkinson, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorBrophy, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorSudlow, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorFlaig, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorde Lusignan, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorAllen, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorChaturvedi, Nen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-16T08:07:02Z
dc.date.available2016-08-22en_US
dc.date.issued2016en_US
dc.date.submitted2017-02-17T12:11:59.003Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/23116
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: UK Biobank is a UK-wide cohort of 502,655 people aged 40-69, recruited from National Health Service registrants between 2006-10, with healthcare data linkage. Type 2 diabetes is a key exposure and outcome. We developed algorithms to define prevalent and incident diabetes for UK Biobank. The algorithms will be implemented by UK Biobank and their results made available to researchers on request. METHODS: We used UK Biobank self-reported medical history and medication to assign prevalent diabetes and type, and tested this against linked primary and secondary care data in Welsh UK Biobank participants. Additionally, we derived and tested algorithms for incident diabetes using linked primary and secondary care data in the English Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and ran these on secondary care data in UK Biobank. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: For prevalent diabetes, 0.001% and 0.002% of people classified as "diabetes unlikely" in UK Biobank had evidence of diabetes in their primary or secondary care record respectively. Of those classified as "probable" type 2 diabetes, 75% and 96% had specific type 2 diabetes codes in their primary and secondary care records. For incidence, 95% of people with the type 2 diabetes-specific C10F Read code in primary care had corroborative evidence of diabetes from medications, blood testing or diabetes specific process of care codes. Only 41% of people identified with type 2 diabetes in primary care had secondary care evidence of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, of incident cases using ICD-10 type 2 diabetes specific codes in secondary care, 77% had corroborative evidence of diabetes in primary care. We suggest our definition of prevalent diabetes from UK Biobank baseline data has external validity, and recommend that specific primary care Read codes should be used for incident diabetes to ensure precision. Secondary care data should be used for incident diabetes with caution, as around half of all cases are missed, and a quarter have no corroborative evidence of diabetes in primary care.en_US
dc.format.extente0162388 - ?en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS Oneen_US
dc.rightsThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
dc.subjectAgeden_US
dc.subjectAlgorithmsen_US
dc.subjectBiological Specimen Banksen_US
dc.subjectDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2en_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectIncidenceen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subjectPrevalenceen_US
dc.subjectUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.titleAlgorithms for the Capture and Adjudication of Prevalent and Incident Diabetes in UK Biobank.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder© 2016 Eastwood et al.
dc.identifier.doi10.1371/journal.pone.0162388en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27631769en_US
pubs.issue9en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.volume11en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-08-22en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record