Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26085977›Full record

ArticleCurrent epidemiology reports2014

Misclassification in administrative claims data: quantifying the impact on treatment effect estimates.

Michele Jonsson Funk, Suzanne N Landi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current epidemiology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Association of Immunodeficiency and HIV Viremia With Cervical Precancer and Cancer Risk Among Women With HIV in South Africa.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Considerations for Data Accuracy in Assessing Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Care Delivery.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article

45 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

2 authors.

Michele Jonsson FunkDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC.
Suzanne N LandiDepartment of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC.

Funding

Training Program in Reproductive, Perinatal, and Pediatric EpidemiologyT32HD052468 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Julie L Daniels · 2008 to 2026
$3.8M
Methods for Estimating Sex Differences in Safety and Effectiveness of DrugsR01HL118255 · NHLBI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI JONSSON FUNK, MICHELE LAURA · 2014 to 2017
$1.7M
AHRQ HHS K02 HS017950NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL118255NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD052468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misclassification is present in nearly every epidemiologic study, yet is rarely quantified in analysis in favor of a focus on random error. In this review, we discuss past and present wisdom on misclassification and what measures should be taken to quantify this influential bias, with a focus on bias in pharmacoepidemiologic studies. To date, pharmacoepidemiology primarily utilizes data obtained from administrative claims, a rich source of prescription data but susceptible to bias from unobservable factors including medication sample use, medications filled but not taken, health conditions that are not reported in the administrative billing data, and inadequate capture of confounders. Due to the increasing focus on comparative effectiveness research, we provide a discussion of misclassification in the context of an active comparator, including a demonstration of treatment effects biased away from the null in the presence of nondifferential misclassification. Finally, we highlight recently developed methods to quantify bias and offer these methods as potential options for strengthening the validity and quantifying uncertainty of results obtained from pharmacoepidemiologic research.

Indexed as

administrative claimsBayesian bias analysiscomparative effectivenessmeasurement errormisclassificationmodified maximum likelihoodmultiple imputation for measurement errornew user designpharmacoepidemiologyprobabilistic bias analysispropensity score calibrationregression calibration

Identifiers

PMID26085977
PMCPMC4465810

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.