Dataset Information

Development and Validation of Claims-Based Definitions to Identify Incident and Prevalent Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Administrative Healthcare Databases.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To facilitate inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research in the United States, we developed and validated claims-based definitions to identify incident and prevalent IBD diagnoses using administrative healthcare claims data among multiple payers.

Methods

We used data from Medicare, Medicaid, and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (Anthem commercial and Medicare Advantage claims). The gold standard for validation was review of medical records. We evaluated 1 incidence and 4 prevalence algorithms based on a combination of International Classification of Diseases codes, National Drug Codes, and Current Procedural Terminology codes. The claims-based incident diagnosis date needed to be within ±90 days of that recorded in the medical record to be valid.

Results

We reviewed 111 charts of patients with a potentially incident diagnosis. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the claims algorithm was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81%-97%). We reviewed 332 charts to validate prevalent case definition algorithms. The PPV was 94% (95% CI, 86%-98%) for ≥2 IBD diagnoses and presence of prescriptions for IBD medications, 92% (95% CI, 85%-97%) for ≥2 diagnoses without any medications, 78% (95% CI, 67%-87%) for a single diagnosis and presence of an IBD medication, and 35% (95% CI, 25%-46%) for 1 physician diagnosis and no IBD medications.

Conclusions

Through a combination of diagnosis, procedural, and medication codes in insurance claims data, we were able to identify incident and prevalent IBD cases with high accuracy. These algorithms can be useful for the ascertainment of IBD cases in future studies.

SUBMITTER: Dawwas GK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10697409 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and Validation of Claims-Based Definitions to Identify Incident and Prevalent Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Administrative Healthcare Databases.

Dawwas Ghadeer K GK Weiss Alexandra A Constant Brad D BD Parlett Lauren E LE Haynes Kevin K Yang Jeff Yufeng JY Brensinger Colleen C Wu Qufei Q Pate Virginia V Jonsson Funk Michele M Schaubel Douglas E DE Hurtado-Lorenzo Andres A David Kappelman Michael M Lewis James D JD

Inflammatory bowel diseases 20231201 12

<h4>Background</h4>To facilitate inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research in the United States, we developed and validated claims-based definitions to identify incident and prevalent IBD diagnoses using administrative healthcare claims data among multiple payers.<h4>Methods</h4>We used data from Medicare, Medicaid, and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (Anthem commercial and Medicare Advantage claims). The gold standard for validation was review of medical records. We evaluated 1 inci ...[more]

PMID: 37043675

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop cohort definitions and algorithms that can be applied to a range of real-world retrospective data sources in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, China, and Japan to identify patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome (LGS) or Dravet syndrome (DS) to aid future research.MethodsThe study was conducted in 3 stages. A targeted literature review was used to identify retrospective healthcare database studies identifying LGS or DS populations and develop overall draft cohort definitions and algorithms. Country-specific research explored the diagnosis codes and antiseizure medications (ASMs) with available indications for LGS or DS, with the findings used to adapt the cohort definitions and algorithms to country-specific settings. Physician interviews were conducted to validate and refine the draft country-specific cohort definitions and algorithms, and better understand the diagnosis and treatment of patients with LGS and DS in each country.ResultsForty-eight publications were reviewed; 25 focused on LGS only and 14 on DS only. LGS-specific and DS-specific diagnosis codes were identified in the United States, Spain, and United Kingdom; local codes in France, China, and Japan; and no LGS-specific or DS-specific diagnosis codes in Germany or Italy. ASMs only indicated for LGS or DS were available across all countries except China. Multiple seizure types, developmental delay, and intellectual disabilities were considered by the physicians to be key diagnostic features. The country-specific definitions for all 3 approaches (specific diagnostic codes, ASM indicated for LGS or DS only, and broader epilepsy diagnostic codes) were refined further using consensus from the physician interviews.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively develop country-specific definitions and algorithms for LGS and DS across several countries that provide a solid foundation toward identifying such patients from real-world retrospective databases. However, additional research and validation using real-world data sources are warranted.

Project description:ObjectivePressure ulcer development is a quality of care indicator, as pressure ulcers are potentially preventable. Yet pressure ulcer is a leading cause of morbidity, discomfort and additional healthcare costs for inpatients. Methods are lacking for accurate surveillance of pressure ulcer in hospitals to track occurrences and evaluate care improvement strategies. The main study aim was to validate hospital discharge abstract database (DAD) in recording pressure ulcers against nursing consult reports, and to calculate prevalence of pressure ulcers in Alberta, Canada in DAD. We hypothesised that a more inclusive case definition for pressure ulcers would enhance validity of cases identified in administrative data for research and quality improvement purposes.SettingA cohort of patients with pressure ulcers were identified from enterostomal (ET) nursing consult documents at a large university hospital in 2011.ParticipantsThere were 1217 patients with pressure ulcers in ET nursing documentation that were linked to a corresponding record in DAD to validate DAD for correct and accurate identification of pressure ulcer occurrence, using two case definitions for pressure ulcer.ResultsUsing pressure ulcer definition 1 (7 codes), prevalence was 1.4%, and using definition 2 (29 codes), prevalence was 4.2% after adjusting for misclassifications. The results were lower than expected. Definition 1 sensitivity was 27.7% and specificity was 98.8%, while definition 2 sensitivity was 32.8% and specificity was 95.9%. Pressure ulcer in both DAD and ET consultation increased with age, number of comorbidities and length of stay.ConclusionDAD underestimate pressure ulcer prevalence. Since various codes are used to record pressure ulcers in DAD, the case definition with more codes captures more pressure ulcer cases, and may be useful for monitoring facility trends. However, low sensitivity suggests that this data source may not be accurate for determining overall prevalence, and should be cautiously compared with other prevalence studies.

Project description:Healthcare administrative (claims) data are commonly utilized to estimate drug effects. We identified considerable heterogeneity in fracture outcome definitions in a scoping review of 57 studies that estimated osteoporosis drug effects on fracture risk. Better understanding of the impact of different fracture definitions on study results is needed.PurposeHealthcare administrative (claims) data are frequently used to estimate the real-world effects of drugs. Fracture incidence is a common outcome of osteoporosis drug studies. We aimed to describe how fractures are defined in studies that use claims data.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and gray literature for studies published in English between 2000 and 2020 that estimated fracture effectiveness (hip, humerus, radius/ulna, vertebra) or safety (atypical fracture of the femur, AFF) of osteoporosis drugs using claims data in Canada and the USA. Literature searches, screening and data abstraction were completed independently by two reviewers.ResultsWe identified 57 eligible studies (52 effectiveness, 3 safety, 2 both). Hip fracture was the most common fracture site studied (93%), followed by humerus (66%), radius/ulna (59%), vertebra (61%), and AFF (9%). Half (n = 29) of the studies did not indicate specific data sources, codes, or cite a validation paper. Of the papers with sufficient detail, heterogeneity in fracture definitions was common. The most common definition within each fracture site was used by less than half of the studies that examined effectiveness (12 definitions in 29 hip fracture papers, 8 definitions in 17 humerus papers, 8 definitions in 13 radius/ulna papers, 9 definitions in 15 vertebra papers), and 3 definitions among 4 AFF papers.ConclusionThere is ambiguity and heterogeneity in fracture outcome definitions in studies that leverage claims data. Better transparency in outcome reporting is needed. Future exploration of how fracture definitions impact study results is warranted.

Project description:Validation of algorithms for selecting patients from healthcare administrative databases (HAD) is recommended. This PATHFINDER study section is aimed at testing algorithms to select rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from Tuscan HAD (THAD) and assessing RA diagnosis time interval between the medical chart date and that of THAD. A population was extracted from THAD. The information of the medical charts at the Rheumatology Unit of Pisa University Hospital represented the reference. We included first ever users of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between 2014 and 2016 (index date) with at least a specialist visit at the Rheumatology Unit of the Pisa University Hospital recorded from 2013 to the index date. Out of these, we tested four index tests (algorithms): (1) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions (ICD-9 code, 714*); (2) RA according to exemption code from co-payment (006); (3) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions AND RA according to exemption code from co-payment; (4) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions OR RA according to exemption code from co-payment. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predicted values (PPV and NPV) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and the RA diagnosis median time interval (interquartile range, IQR). Two sensitivity analyses were performed. Among 277 reference patients, 103 had RA. The fourth algorithm identified 96 true RA patients, PPV 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85), sensitivity 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97), specificity 0.84 (95% CI 0.78-0.90), and NPV 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.98). The sensitivity analyses confirmed performance. The time measured between the actual RA diagnosis date recorded in medical charts and that assumed in THAD was 2.2 years (IQR 0.5-8.4). In conclusion, this validation showed the fourth algorithm as the best. The time interval elapsed between the actual RA diagnosis date in medical charts and that extrapolated from THAD has to be considered in the design of future studies.

Dataset Information

Development and Validation of Claims-Based Definitions to Identify Incident and Prevalent Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Administrative Healthcare Databases.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Development and Validation of Claims-Based Definitions to Identify Incident and Prevalent Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Administrative Healthcare Databases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets