Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24433971›Full record

SynthesisOphthalmology2014

Use of health care claims data to study patients with ophthalmologic conditions.

Joshua D Stein, Flora Lum, Paul P Lee, William L Rich, Anne L Coleman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Five-year risk of rhegmatogenous retinal detachment following prophylactic laser retinopexy for retinal breaks and lattice degeneration: a real-world analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Postoperative vision loss and visual disturbances in a Canadian provincial administrative data repository.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joshua D SteinW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Flora LumH. Dunbar Hoskins, Jr., M.D. Center for Quality Eye Care, American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: flum@aao.org.
Paul P LeeW. K. Kellogg Eye Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
William L RichNorthern Virginia Ophthalmology Associates, Falls Church, Virginia.
Anne L ColemanH. Dunbar Hoskins, Jr., M.D. Center for Quality Eye Care, American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California; Jules Stein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine and Jonathan and Karen Fielding School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.

Funding

The Association Between Cataract Surgery and Progression of Diabetic RetinopathyK23EY019511 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI STEIN, JOSHUA D · 2009 to 2013
$1.0M
NEI NIH HHS 1K23EY019511-01NEI NIH HHS K23 EY019511
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe what information is or is not included in health care claims data, provide an overview of the main advantages and limitations of performing analyses using health care claims data, and offer general guidance on how to report and interpret findings of ophthalmology-related claims data analyses.

designSystematic review.

participantsNot applicable.

methodsA literature review and synthesis of methods for claims-based data analyses.

main outcome measuresNot applicable.

resultsSome advantages of using claims data for analyses include large, diverse sample sizes, longitudinal follow-up, lack of selection bias, and potential for complex, multivariable modeling. The disadvantages include (a) the inherent limitations of claims data, such as incomplete, inaccurate, or missing data, or the lack of specific billing codes for some conditions; and (b) the inability, in some circumstances, to adequately evaluate the appropriateness of care. In general, reports of claims data analyses should include clear descriptions of the following methodological elements: the data source, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the specific billing codes used, and the potential confounding factors incorporated in the multivariable models.

conclusionsThe use of claims data for research is expected to increase with the enhanced availability of data from Medicare and other sources. The use of claims data to evaluate resource use and efficiency and to determine the basis for supplementary payment methods for physicians is anticipated. Thus, it will be increasingly important for eye care providers to use accurate and descriptive codes for billing. Adherence to general guidance on the reporting of claims data analyses, as outlined in this article, is important to enhance the credibility and applicability of findings. Guidance on optimal ways to conduct and report ophthalmology-related investigations using claims data will likely continue to evolve as health services researchers refine the metrics to analyze large administrative data sets.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchInsurance Claim ReviewData CollectionDelivery of Health CareEye DiseasesHealth ResourcesHumansMedicareOphthalmologyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID24433971
PMCPMC4012019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.