Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28120552›Full record

ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2017

Quantification of missing prescriptions in commercial claims databases: results of a cohort study.

Maria Soledad Cepeda, Daniel Fife, Michel Denarié, Dan Bradford, Stephanie Roy, Yingli Yuan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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. Article
  19. Observational
  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

6 authors.

Maria Soledad CepedaDepartment of Epidemiology, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA.
Daniel FifeDepartment of Epidemiology, Janssen Research and Development, LLC, Titusville, NJ, USA.
Michel DenariéIMS Real World Evidence Solutions, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA.
Dan BradfordIMS Real World Evidence Solutions, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA.
Stephanie RoyIMS Real World Evidence Solutions, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA.
Yingli YuanIMS Real World Evidence Solutions, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to quantify the magnitude of missed dispensings in commercial claims databases.

methodsA retrospective cohort study has been used linking PharMetrics, a commercial claims database, to a prescription database (LRx) that captures pharmacy dispensings independently of payment method, including cash transactions. We included adults with dispensings for opioids, diuretics, antiplatelet medications, or anticoagulants. To determine the degree of capture of dispensings, we calculated the number of subjects with the following: (1) same number of dispensings in both databases; (2) at least one dispensing, but not all dispensings, missed in PharMetrics; and (3) all dispensings missing in PharMetrics. Similar analyses were conducted using dispensings as the unit of analysis. To assess whether a dispensing in LRx was in PharMetrics, the dispensing in PharMetrics had to be for the same medication class and within ±7 days in LRx.

resultsA total of 1 426 498 subjects were included. Overall, 68% of subjects had the same number of dispensings in both databases. In 13% of subjects, PharMetrics identified ≥1 dispensing but also missed ≥1 dispensing. In 19% of the subjects, PharMetrics missed all the dispensings. Taking dispensings as the unit of analysis, 25% of the dispensings present in LRx were not captured in PharMetrics. These patterns were similar across all four classes of medications. Of the dispensings missing in PharMetrics, 48% involved a subject who had >1 health insurance plan.

conclusionsCommercial claims databases provide an incomplete picture of all prescriptions dispensed to patients. The lack of capture goes beyond cash transactions and potentially introduces substantial misclassification bias. © 2017 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology & Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Indexed as

BiasAdolescentAdultAgedCohort StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInsurance, Pharmaceutical ServicesMaleMiddle AgedPharmaceutical ServicesPharmacoepidemiologyPrescription DrugsRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultPrescription Drugsclaims databaseslimitations of observational studiesmisclassification of exposurepharmacoepidemiology

Identifiers

PMID28120552
PMCPMC5396298

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.