Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24664793›Full record

Trial reportPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2014

Validation of a claims-based antipsychotic polypharmacy measure.

Emily Leckman-Westin, Edith Kealey, Nitin Gupta, Qingxian Chen, Tobias Gerhard, Stephen Crystal, Mark Olfson, Molly Finnerty

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Emily Leckman-WestinNew York State Office of Mental Health (NYSOMH), Albany, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, State University of New York at Albany, School of Public Health, Rensselaer, NY, USA.
Edith Kealey
Nitin Gupta
Qingxian Chen
Tobias Gerhard
Stephen Crystal
Mark Olfson
Molly Finnerty
New York State Office of Mental Health · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USColumbia University Irving Medical Center · USNew York University · USUniversity at Albany, State University of New York · US

Funding

Research Methods CoreP30MH090322 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI HOAGWOOD, KIMBERLY E. · 2011 to 2015
$8.1M
Center for Education and Research on Mental Health TherapeuticsU19HS021112 · AHRQ · RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIV OF N.J. · PI CRYSTAL, STEPHEN · 2011 to 2015
$3.9M
AHRQ HHS U19 HS021112NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH090322
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose Given the metabolic and neurologic side effects of antipsychotics and concerns about the increased risks associated with concomitant use, antipsychotic polypharmacy is a quality concern. This study assessed the operating characteristics of a Medicaid claims-based measure of antipsychotic polypharmacy. Methods A random sample from 10 public mental health clinics and 312 patients met criteria for this study. Medical record extractors were blind to measure status. We examined the prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) in Medicaid claims, testing nine different definitions of antipsychotic polypharmacy, including >14, >60, or >90 days concurrent use of ≥2 antipsychotic agents, each with allowable gaps of up to 0, 14, or 32 days in days' supply of antipsychotic medications. Results All Medicaid claims measure definitions tested had excellent specificity and PPV (>91%). Good to excellent sensitivity was dependent upon use of a 32-day gap allowance, particularly as duration of concurrent antipsychotic use increased. The proposed claims-based measure (90-day concurrent use of ≥2 or more antipsychotics, allowing for a 32-day gap) had excellent specificity (99.1%, 95%CI: 98.2-99.6) and PPV (90.9%, 95%CI: 83.1-95.7) with good sensitivity (79.4%, 95%CI: 70.4-86.6). The overall level of concordance between claims and medical record-based categorization of antipsychotic polypharmacy was high (96.4%, n = 301/312 clients, Cohen's K = 84.7, 95%CI: 75.9-93.5). Discrepant cases were reviewed, and implications are discussed. Conclusions Administrative claims data can be used to construct valid measures of antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyAdolescentAdultAntipsychotic AgentsChildDrug UtilizationHumansInsurance Claim ReviewMaleMedicaidMiddle AgedUnited StatesYoung AdultAntipsychotic Agentsadministrative dataantipsychotic polypharmacyMedicaidpharmacoepidemiologypositive predictive valuesensitivity

Identifiers

PMID24664793
PMCPMC4486331
OpenAlexW1491669339

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.