Drug Safety

, Volume 33, Issue 9, pp 741–750 | Cite as

Identifying Major Congenital Malformations in the UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD)

A Study Reporting on the Sensitivity and Added Value of Photocopied Medical Records and Free Text in the GPRD
  • Miss Rachel A. Charlton
  • John G. Weil
  • Marianne C. Cunnington
  • Corinne S. de Vries
Short Communication


Background: Postmarketing teratogen surveillance is essential and requires a data source that can reliably capture a wide range of congenital malformations. The UK General Practice Research Database (GPRD) may have the potential to be used for this kind of surveillance.

Objective: To assess the extent to which this database can be used to accurately identify major congenital malformations.

Methods: This study was carried out as part of a broader study to compare data on anticonvulsant use and safety in pregnancy between the GPRD and a pregnancy registry. The study period ran from 1 January 1990 until 31 December 2006. Mother-baby pairs where the mother had a record of epilepsy, seizure or convulsion were identified using the GPRD computerized medical records. Infants of mother-baby pairs who had a record of a major congenital malformation were identified. Full photocopied paper medical records were requested from the infant’s general practitioner and where this was not possible any data entries consisting of uncoded comments, so-called ‘free text’, in the electronic GPRD record were requested from the database provider. This additional information was then reviewed in order to determine the extent to which the congenital malformation diagnoses identified via the computerized records could be confirmed or rejected and then classified as being major or minor.

Results: Within the study population of 3869 live mother-baby pairs, 188 potentially major congenital malformations were identified from the GPRD computerized record relating to 161 unique individuals. Using a combination of photocopied medical records and free text it was possible to verify 160 malformations (85.1%) as the malformation indicated by the computerized records; this ranged from 91.7% of those cases verified using photocopied medical records and 77.9% of cases verified using free text. Of the verified congenital malformations, using a combination of computerized data, photocopied medical records and free text, it was possible to classify 78.1% as being major and 15.0% as minor, and this percentage was found to be the same for those cases reviewed by photocopied records and those where free text was used. The proportions of malformations that could be verified and those that could be classified as major or minor were found to vary by malformation class.

Conclusions: The GPRD can be used to ascertain a wide range of congenital malformations. In many cases, when a malformation is identified in the GPRD via the computerized medical records, the malformation is likely to exist. However, in this study a small proportion of identified cases had to be excluded because they had been coded incorrectly or diagnostically ruled out. Therefore, depending on the congenital malformation of interest, verification of such malformations using photocopied medical records or free text is generally recommended.


  1. 1.
    Wood L, Martinez C. The General Practice Research Database: role in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2004; 27(12): 871–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charlton RA, Cunnington MC, de Vries CS, et al. Data resources for investigating drug exposure during pregnancy and associated outcomes: the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) as an alternative to pregnancy registries. Drug Saf 2008; 31(1): 39–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wurst KE, Ephross SA, Loehr J, et al. The utility of the General Practice Research Database to examine selected congenital heart defects: a validation study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 867–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Devine S, West SL, Andrews E, et al. Validation of neural tube defects in the full-featured General Practice Research Database. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 434–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    MHRA. The General Practice Research Database, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gprd.com/home/default.asp [Accessed 2010 Mar 1]
  6. 6.
    Hart AC, Hopkins CA, editors. ICD-9-CM professional for pospitals. Volumes 1, 2 and 3. International classification of diseases 9th revision, clinical modification 6th ed. Reston (VA): Ingenix Inc. 2003, St Anthony Publishing/ Medicode, 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EUROCAT. List of minor anomalies for exclusion up to birth year 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/content/EUROCAT-Old-List-Minor-Anomalies.pdf [Accessed 26 Jan 2010]
  8. 8.
    EUROCAT. Minor anomalies for exclusion (chapter 3.2, guide 1.3), 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurocat-network.eu/content/EUROCAT-Guide-1.3.pdf [Accessed 26 Jan 2010]
  9. 9.
    Cooper WO, Hernandez-Diaz S, Gideon P, et al. Positive predictive value of computerised records for major congenital malformations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 455–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cole JA, Modell JG, Haight BR, et al. Bupropion in pregnancy and the prevalence of congenital malformations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 474–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cole JA, Ephross SA, Cosmatos IS, et al. Paroxetine in the first trimester and the prevalence of congenital malformations. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16: 1075–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miss Rachel A. Charlton
    • 1
  • John G. Weil
    • 2
  • Marianne C. Cunnington
    • 2
  • Corinne S. de Vries
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy and PharmacologyUniversity of BathClaverton Down, BathUK
  2. 2.Worldwide Epidemiology, GlaxoSmithKlineHarlowUK

Personalised recommendations