Search

Reimar Wernich Thomsen,1 Jens Steen Nielsen,2 Sinna Pilgaard Ulrichsen,1 Lars Pedersen,1 Anne-Marie Sigsgaard Hansen,3 Tove Nilsson11Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, 2Odense University Hospital, Odense, 3Danish Clinical Registers (DCR), Aarhus, DenmarkAbstract: This paper provides an overview of the baseline data collected in the nationwide Danish Centre for Strategic Research in Type 2 Diabetes (DD2) project. The paper presents descriptive data from the first 580 patients enrolled in the DD2. The DD2 database will contain detailed interview data, clinical examination data, and urine and blood samples from up to 10,000 patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes each year, collected from general practitioners and hospital outpatient clinics in all of Denmark. Of the first DD2 patients enrolled, blood and urine samples have been obtained from 97%. The median age of the first 580 patients was 59 years and 322 (56%) were men. Median weight gain from age 20 to maximum lifetime weight was 29 kg for men and 31 kg for women, and 364 patients (63%) did not currently participate in regular sports activities. Two hundred and ninety two patients (50%) had a known family history of diabetes. Two hundred fifty (43%) of the 580 DD2 patients have also been enrolled in the Danish Diabetes Database for Adults from which additional clinical data can be obtained. Among these 250 patients (154 of whom were men, 96 women), 75 (49%) men were currently obese, and 63 (41%) were overweight, whereas 62 (65%) women were obese, and another 21 (22%) were overweight. Twenty-nine patients (12%) received insulin, 164 patients (66%) received oral antidiabetics only, and 57 (23%) received no antidiabetic treatment. Glycemic regulation was modest (the glycosylated hemoglobin A of 46% was ≥7.5%). Two thirds of the patients received antihypertensive and hypolipidemic treatment. Self-reported daily tobacco smoking (23%) and alcohol overuse (6%) seemed comparable to occurrence in the general Danish population. One quarter of the patients with newly diagnosed diabetes had a history of hospital-diagnosed comorbidity at baseline as included in the Charlson comorbidity index, in particular prior myocardial infarction (5%), cerebrovascular disease (5%), peripheral vascular disease (4%), chronic pulmonary disease (6%), and previous solid cancer (6%). In the future, the DD2 database represents a valuable source for outcome studies in type 2 diabetes.Keywords: type 2 diabetes, epidemiological methods, registries, prognosis

BACKGROUND: The Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR) is one of the world's oldest nationwide hospital registries and is used extensively for research. Many studies have validated algorithms for identifying health events in the DNPR, but the reports are fragmented and no overview exists.OBJECTIVES: To review the content, data quality, and research potential of the DNPR.METHODS: We examined the setting, history, aims, content, and classification systems of the DNPR. We searched PubMed and the Danish Medical Journal to create a bibliography of validation studies. We included also studies that were referenced in retrieved papers or known to us beforehand. Methodological considerations related to DNPR data were reviewed.RESULTS: During 1977-2012, the DNPR registered 8,085,603 persons, accounting for 7,268,857 inpatient, 5,953,405 outpatient, and 5,097,300 emergency department contacts. The DNPR provides nationwide longitudinal registration of detailed administrative and clinical data. It has recorded information on all patients discharged from Danish nonpsychiatric hospitals since 1977 and on psychiatric inpatients and emergency department and outpatient specialty clinic contacts since 1995. For each patient contact, one primary and optional secondary diagnoses are recorded according to the International Classification of Diseases. The DNPR provides a data source to identify diseases, examinations, certain in-hospital medical treatments, and surgical procedures. Long-term temporal trends in hospitalization and treatment rates can be studied. The positive predictive values of diseases and treatments vary widely (CONCLUSION: The DNPR is a valuable tool for epidemiological research. However, both its strengths and limitations must be considered when interpreting research results, and continuous validation of its clinical data is essential.