What is it about?

Cardiac diagnoses can be used as clinical outcomes in research studies if they are reliable. In our study, we aimed to understand how different diagnoses-specific factors, like type, subcategories and position affected the diagnostic accuracy. Patients with discharge diagnoses of heart attack, heart failure or stroke were included. We evaluated what percentage of those who received the diagnoses actually had the disease (positive predictive value, PPV).

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Cardiovascular discharge diagnoses provides an easy and affordable access for researchers to cardiovascular endpoints. To ensure high-quality science, the included diagnoses must be reliable and accurate. Validation of diagnoses is a highly time-consuming task. Our study found that diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction and stroke had excellent validity when placed during hospital stays, and may be used as endpoints in clinical epidemiological studies with less rigid validation. Thus, other researchers may use our findings to target the validation towards the more uncertain diagnoses. This may save time and resources for fellow researchers in the field. For heart failure and TIA the lower validity will introduce some uncertainty if used as study endpoints, hence validation or additional information supporting the diagnoses is warranted.


Working with the diagnoses and their validity has for me highlighted the importence of presise and reliable diagnsostic accuracy, as a reseracher as well as a clinician. It has influenced my own diagnostic accuracy, and drawn attention to the importantce of making precise diagnoses in our clinic.

Cathrine Rye

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: The influence of diagnostic subgroups, patient- and hospital characteristics for the validity of cardiovascular diagnoses–Data from a Norwegian hospital trust, PLoS ONE, April 2024, PLOS,
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302181.
You can read the full text:

Open access logo


The following have contributed to this page