Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26229461›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2015

Validation of an administrative claims-based diagnostic code for pneumonia in a US-based commercially insured COPD population.

David M Kern, Jill Davis, Setareh A Williams, Ozgur Tunceli, Bingcao Wu, Sally Hollis, Charlie Strange, Frank Trudo

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

David M KernHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.
Jill DavisAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE, USA.
Setareh A WilliamsAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Ozgur TunceliHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.
Bingcao WuHealthCore, Inc., Wilmington, DE, USA.
Sally HollisAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Cheshire, UK.
Charlie StrangeDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Frank TrudoAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, DE, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the accuracy of claims-based pneumonia diagnoses in COPD patients using clinical information in medical records as the reference standard.

methodsSelecting from a repository containing members' data from 14 regional United States health plans, this validation study identified pneumonia diagnoses within a group of patients initiating treatment for COPD between March 1, 2009 and March 31, 2012. Patients with ≥1 claim for pneumonia (International Classification of Diseases Version 9-CM code 480.xx-486.xx) were identified during the 12 months following treatment initiation. A subset of 800 patients was randomly selected to abstract medical record data (paper based and electronic) for a target sample of 400 patients, to estimate validity within 5% margin of error. Positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated for the claims diagnosis of pneumonia relative to the reference standard, defined as a documented diagnosis in the medical record.

resultsA total of 388 records were reviewed; 311 included a documented pneumonia diagnosis, indicating 80.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.8% to 84.0%) of claims-identified pneumonia diagnoses were validated by the medical charts. Claims-based diagnoses in inpatient or emergency departments (n=185) had greater PPV versus outpatient settings (n=203), 87.6% (95% CI: 81.9%-92.0%) versus 73.4% (95% CI: 66.8%-79.3%), respectively. Claims-diagnoses verified with paper-based charts had similar PPV as the overall study sample, 80.2% (95% CI: 71.1%-87.5%), and higher PPV than those linked to electronic medical records, 73.3% (95% CI: 65.5%-80.2%). Combined paper-based and electronic records had a higher PPV, 87.6% (95% CI: 80.9%-92.6%).

conclusionAdministrative claims data indicating a diagnosis of pneumonia in COPD patients are supported by medical records. The accuracy of a medical record diagnosis of pneumonia remains unknown. With increased use of claims data in medical research, COPD researchers can study pneumonia with confidence that claims data are a valid tool when studying the safety of COPD therapies that could potentially lead to increased pneumonia susceptibility or severity.

Indexed as

CommerceInsurance Claim ReviewInsurance, HealthInternational Classification of DiseasesAdultAgedAmbulatory CareAnti-Bacterial AgentsData MiningElectronic Health RecordsEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial Agentsclaims datamedical record reviewpneumoniapositive predictive valuevalidation

Identifiers

PMID26229461
PMCPMC4516198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.