BACKGROUND: Electronic medical records (EMR) can be a cost-effective source for @entity101 surveillance. However, diagnosis of @entity101 in EMR is commonly under-coded and warrants the needs to review blood pressure and antihypertensive drugs for @entity101 case identification. METHODS: We included all the @entity1 actively registered in @entity283 ( @entity283 ) database, UK, on 31 December 2011. Three case definitions using diagnosis code, antihypertensive drug prescriptions and abnormal blood pressure, respectively, were used to identify @entity101 @entity1 . We compared the prevalence and treatment rate of @entity101 in @entity283 with results from @entity283 ( @entity283 ) in 2011. RESULTS: Compared with prevalence reported by @entity283 (29.7%), the use of diagnosis code alone (14.0%) underestimated @entity101 prevalence. The use of any of the definitions (38.4%) or combination of antihypertensive drug prescriptions and abnormal blood pressure (38.4%) had higher prevalence than @entity283 . The use of diagnosis code or two abnormal blood pressure records with a 2-year period (31.1%) had similar prevalence and treatment rate of @entity101 with @entity283 . CONCLUSIONS: Different definitions should be used for different study purposes. The definition of 'diagnosis code or two abnormal blood pressure records with a 2-year period' could be used for @entity101 surveillance in @entity283 .

Methods of defining XXXX in electronic medical records: validation against national survey data.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity101 :: ('MESH:D006973', 'Disease') :: ['hypertension'] @entity283 :: ('OMIM:603663', 'Disease') :: ['THIN', 'Health Survey for England', 'HSE', 'The Health Improvement Network']
@entity101 :: (MESH:D006973,Disease) :: ['hypertension']
