Matching colonoscopy and pathology data in population-based registries: development of a novel algorithm and the
Mary Ann Greene1, Lynn F Butterly, Martha Goodrich
1Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Insights
Matching colonoscopy and pathology data for population registries is challenging. Only 50% of polyps were perfectly matched, impacting adenoma detection rate calculations.
Area of Science:
- Gastroenterology
- Public Health Surveillance
- Data Quality Management
Background:
- Accurate polyp-level data in population registries is crucial for quality assessment.
- Matching endoscopist polypectomy records with pathology reports is essential for data integrity.
Purpose of the Study:
- To identify challenges in matching colonoscopy and pathology data within a population-based registry.
- To evaluate the quality and accuracy of polyp-level data collection.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data (August 2006-November 2008).
- Assessment of missing reports, data discrepancies, and unmatched polyps due to container issues.
- Development of an algorithm for capturing polyp characteristics and flagging discrepancies.
Main Results:
- Only 50% of polyps achieved perfect matching without assumptions or discrepancies.
- Adenoma detection rate (ADR) could be determined for only 69.9% of eligible patients.
- Data for patients with ≥3 adenomas was available for just 29.7% of eligible patients.
Conclusions:
- Impediments in collecting polyp-level data were identified in population-based registries.
- The study provides parameters for assessing the quality and accuracy of registry data.
- Higher rates of missing reports may occur during a registry's early establishment phase.
Background:
The quality of polyp-level data in a population-based registry depends on the ability to match each polypectomy recorded by the endoscopist to a specific diagnosis on the pathology report.
Objective:
To review impediments encountered in matching colonoscopy and pathology data in a population-based registry.
Design:
New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data from August 2006 to November 2008 were analyzed for prevalence of missing reports, discrepancies between colonoscopy and pathology reports, and the proportion of polyps that could not be matched because of multiple polyps submitted in the same container.
Setting:
New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.
Patients:
This study involved all consenting patients during the study period.
Intervention:
Develop an algorithm for capturing number, size, location, and histology of polyps and for defining and flagging discrepancies to ensure data quality.
Main Outcome Measurements:
The proportion of polyps with no assumption or discrepancy, the proportion of patient records eligible for determining the adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the number of patients with ≥3 adenomas.
Results:
Only 50% of polyps removed during this period were perfectly matched, with no assumption or discrepancy. Records from only 69.9% and 29.7% of eligible patients could be used to determine the ADR and the number of patients with ≥3 adenomas, respectively.
Limitations:
Rates of missing reports may have been higher in the early phase of establishment of the registry.
Conclusion:
This study highlights the impediments in collecting polyp-level data in a population-based registry and provides useful parameters for evaluating the quality and accuracy of data obtained from such registries.
