Validating Administrative Data in Stroke Research

Background and Purpose— Research based on administrative data has advantages, including large numbers, consistent data, and low cost. This study was designed to compare different methods of stroke classification using administrative data. Methods— Administrative hospital discharge data and medical record review of 206 patients were used to evaluate 3 algorithms for classifying stroke patients. These algorithms were based on all (algorithm 1), the first 2 (algorithm 2), or the primary (algorithm 3) administrative discharge diagnosis code(s). The diagnoses after review of medical record data were considered the gold standard. Then, using a large administrative data set, we compared patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of stroke with patients with their stroke discharge diagnosis code in a nonprimary position. Results— Compared with the gold standard, algorithm 1 had the highest κ for classifying ischemic stroke, with a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value of 90%, and κ=0.82. Algorithm 3 had the highest κ values for intracerebral hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage. For intracerebral hemorrhage, the sensitivity was 85%, specificity was 96%, positive predictive value was 89%, and κ=0.82. For subarachnoid hemorrhage, those values were 90%, 97%, 94%, and 0.88, respectively. Nonprimary position ischemic stroke patients had significantly greater comorbidity and 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 3.2) than primary position ischemic stroke patients. Conclusions— Stroke classification in these administrative data were optimal using all discharge diagnoses for ischemic stroke and primary discharge diagnosis only for intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Selecting ischemic stroke patients on the basis of primary discharge diagnosis may bias administrative samples toward more benign, unrepresentative outcomes and should be avoided.