RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Validation of a case definition for speech and language disorders
JF Canadian Family Physician
JO Can Fam Physician
FD The College of Family Physicians of Canada
SP e107
OP e114
VO 66
IS 3
A1 Rebecca Miyagishima
A1 Neil Drummond
A1 Linda Carroll
A1 Tammy Hopper
A1 Stephanie Garies
A1 Tyler Williamson
YR 2020
UL http://www.cfp.ca/content/66/3/e107.abstract
AB Objective To validate a case definition for speech and language disorders in community-dwelling older adults and to determine the prevalence of speech and language disorders in a primary care population.Design This is a combined case definition validation and cross-sectional prevalence study. Chart review was considered the reference standard and was used to estimate prevalence. This study used de-identified electronic medical record data from participating SAPCReN-CPCSSN (Southern Alberta Primary Care Research Network–Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network) primary care clinics.Setting Southern Alberta.Participants Men and women aged 55 years and older who had visited a SAPCReN-CPCSSN physician or nurse practitioner at least once in the 2 years before the beginning of the study.Main outcome measures Validation analysis included estimation of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Prevalence was the other main outcome measure.Results The prevalence of speech and language disorders within the sample of 1384 patients was 1.2%. The case definition had a favourable specificity (99.9%, 95% CI 99.6% to 100.0%), positive predictive value (75.6%, 95% CI 25.4% to 96.6%), and negative predictive value (99.0%, 95% CI 98.8% to 99.2%). Sensitivity was not sufficient for validity (18.8%, 95% CI 4.05% to 45.6%).Conclusion The case definition did not meet an acceptable standard for validity and thus cannot be used for future epidemiologic research. However, owing to the case definition’s high positive predictive value, it might be useful for clinical purposes and for cohort studies. Finally, while the case definition did not prove valid, this study has provided a conservative estimate of prevalence (1.2%) given the case definition’s high specificity.