Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Objective: There is no standard method of publishing the code ranges in research using routine data. We report how code selection affects the reported prevalence and precision of results. Design: We compared code ranges used to report the impact of pay-for-performance (P4P), with those specified in the P4P scheme, and those used by our informatics team to identify cases. We estimated the positive predictive values (PPV) of people with chronic conditions who were included in the study population, and compared the prevalence and blood pressure (BP) of people with hypertension (HT). Setting: Routinely collected primary care data from the quality improvement in chronic kidney disease (QICKD-ISRCTN56023731) trial. Main outcome measures: The case study population represented roughly 85% of those in the HT P4P group (PPV = 0.842; 95%CI = 0.840-0.844; p < 0.001). We also found differences in the prevalence of stroke (PPV = 0.694; 95%CI = 0.687-0.700) and coronary heart disease (PPV = 0.166; 95%CI = 0.162-0.170), where the paper restricted itself to myocardial infarction codes. Results: We found that the long-term cardiovascular conditions and codes selected for these conditions were inconsistent with those in P4P or the QICKD trial. The prevalence of HT based on the case study codes was 10.3%, compared with 11.8% using the P4P codes; the mean BP was 138.3 mmHg (standard deviation (SD) 15.84 mmHg)/79.4 mmHg (SD 10.3 mmHg) and 137.3 mmHg (SD 15.31)/79.1 mmHg (SD 9.93 mmHg) for the case study and P4P populations, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The case study lacked precision, and excluded cases had a lower BP. Publishing code ranges made this comparison possible and should be mandated for publications based on routine data. Copyright © 2014 The Author(s).

Original publication




Journal article


Informatics in Primary Care

Publication Date





92 - 101