ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015
The impact of standardizing the definition of visits on the consistency of multi-database observational health research.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Active Safety Surveillance Using Real-World Evidence (ASSURE) Implementation: Transparent and Reproducible Real-World Evidence Standardized Framework to Support Safety Signal Evaluation.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Association between gestational diabetes mellitus and long-term all-cause and cause-specific mortality risks: a prospective cohort study based on metabolomics.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- National Patterns of Hospital Admission Versus Home Recovery Following Mastectomy for Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Beta-2 adrenergic receptor agonism alters astrocyte phagocytic activity and has potential applications to psychiatric disease.Discover mental health · 2023Article
- Validation of serostatus of rheumatoid arthritis using ICD-10 codes in administrative claims data.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2023Article
- The impact of commercial health datasets on medical research and health-care algorithms.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Review
- Established Outpatient Care and Follow-Up After Acute Psychiatric Service Use Among Youths and Young Adults.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2023Article
- A network paradigm predicts drug synergistic effects using downstream protein-protein interactions.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2022Article
- Health care utilization and costs associated with direct-acting antivirals for patients with substance use disorders and chronic hepatitis C.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- Development of comparable algorithms to measure primary care indicators using administrative health data across three Canadian provinces.International journal of population data science · 2020Article
- Comparison Of Methods To Estimate Disease-Related Cost And Healthcare Resource Utilization For Autoimmune Diseases In Administrative Claims Databases.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2019Article
- Towards Implementation of OMOP in a German University Hospital Consortium.Applied clinical informatics · 2018Article
- Article
- Identification of Emergency Department Visits in Medicare Administrative Claims: Approaches and Implications.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUse of administrative claims from multiple sources for research purposes is challenged by the lack of consistency in the structure of the underlying data and definition of data across claims data providers. This paper evaluates the impact of applying a standardized revenue code-based logic for defining inpatient encounters across two different claims databases.
methodsWe selected members who had complete enrollment in 2012 from the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (CCAE) and the Optum Clinformatics (Optum) databases. The overall prevalence of inpatient conditions in the raw data was compared to that in the common data model (CDM) with the standardized visit definition applied.
resultsIn CCAE, 87.18% of claims from 2012 that were classified as part of inpatient visits in the raw data were also classified as part of inpatient visits after the data were standardized to CDM, and this overlap was consistent from 2006 to 2011. In contrast, Optum had 83.18% concordance in classification of 2012 claims from inpatient encounters before and after standardization, but the consistency varied over time. The re-classification of inpatient encounters substantially impacted the observed prevalence of medical conditions occurring in the inpatient setting and the consistency in prevalence estimates between the databases. On average, before standardization, each condition in Optum was 12% more prevalent than that same condition in CCAE; after standardization, the prevalence of conditions had a mean difference of only 1% between databases. Amongst 7,039 conditions reviewed, the difference in the prevalence of 67% of conditions in these two databases was reduced after standardization.
conclusionsIn an effort to improve consistency in research results across database one should review sources of database heterogeneity, such as the way data holders process raw claims data. Our study showed that applying the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) CDM with a standardized approach for defining inpatient visits during the extract, transfer, and load process can decrease the heterogeneity observed in disease prevalence estimates across two different claims data sources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.