Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27387323›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Diagnostic accuracy of administrative data algorithms in the diagnosis of osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Swastina Shrestha, Amish J Dave, Elena Losina, Jeffrey N Katz

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

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

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

Swastina ShresthaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, BC 4-016, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Amish J DaveDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, BC 4-016, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Elena LosinaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, BC 4-016, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Jeffrey N KatzDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, BC 4-016, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. jnkatz@partners.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdministrative health care data are frequently used to study disease burden and treatment outcomes in many conditions including osteoarthritis (OA). OA is a chronic condition with significant disease burden affecting over 27 million adults in the US. There are few studies examining the performance of administrative data algorithms to diagnose OA. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of administrative data algorithms for OA diagnosis; and, to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of algorithms based on restrictiveness and reference standards.

methodsTwo reviewers independently screened English-language articles published in Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases that used administrative data to identify OA cases. Each algorithm was classified as restrictive or less restrictive based on number and type of administrative codes required to satisfy the case definition. We recorded sensitivity and specificity of algorithms and calculated positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and positive predictive value (PPV) based on assumed OA prevalence of 0.1, 0.25, and 0.50.

resultsThe search identified 7 studies that used 13 algorithms. Of these 13 algorithms, 5 were classified as restrictive and 8 as less restrictive. Restrictive algorithms had lower median sensitivity and higher median specificity compared to less restrictive algorithms when reference standards were self-report and American college of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. The algorithms compared to reference standard of physician diagnosis had higher sensitivity and specificity than those compared to self-reported diagnosis or ACR criteria.

conclusionsRestrictive algorithms are more specific for OA diagnosis and can be used to identify cases when false positives have higher costs e.g. interventional studies. Less restrictive algorithms are more sensitive and suited for studies that attempt to identify all cases e.g. screening programs.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansOsteoarthritisPractice Guidelines as TopicAdministrative dataDiagnostic accuracyOsteoarthritisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27387323
PMCPMC4936018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.