Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25821898›Full record

ArticleMedical care2017

Validation of Diagnostic Groups Based on Health Care Utilization Data Should Adjust for Sampling Strategy.

Geneviève Cadieux, Robyn Tamblyn, David L Buckeridge, Nandini Dendukuri

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

4 authors.

Geneviève Cadieux*Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON †Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University ‡Direction de la Santé Publique de Montréal §Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Robyn Tamblyn
David L Buckeridge
Nandini Dendukuri

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveValid measurement of outcomes such as disease prevalence using health care utilization data is fundamental to the implementation of a "learning health system." Definitions of such outcomes can be complex, based on multiple diagnostic codes. The literature on validating such data demonstrates a lack of awareness of the need for a stratified sampling design and corresponding statistical methods. We propose a method for validating the measurement of diagnostic groups that have: (1) different prevalences of diagnostic codes within the group; and (2) low prevalence.

methodsWe describe an estimation method whereby: (1) low-prevalence diagnostic codes are oversampled, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of the diagnostic group is estimated as a weighted average of the PPV of each diagnostic code; and (2) claims that fall within a low-prevalence diagnostic group are oversampled relative to claims that are not, and bias-adjusted estimators of sensitivity and specificity are generated. APPLICATION: We illustrate our proposed method using an example from population health surveillance in which diagnostic groups are applied to physician claims to identify cases of acute respiratory illness.

conclusionsFailure to account for the prevalence of each diagnostic code within a diagnostic group leads to the underestimation of the PPV, because low-prevalence diagnostic codes are more likely to be false positives. Failure to adjust for oversampling of claims that fall within the low-prevalence diagnostic group relative to those that do not leads to the overestimation of sensitivity and underestimation of specificity.

Indexed as

Diagnosis-Related GroupsPatient Acceptance of Health CareSelection BiasAlgorithmsHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesPopulation SurveillanceRegistries

Identifiers

PMID25821898
PMCPMC5510703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.