ArticleMedicine2018
A novel approach for medical research on lymphomas: A study validation of claims-based algorithms to identify incident cases.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validity of claims-based algorithms for selected cancers in Japan: Results from the VALIDATE-J study.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of claims database to study lymphomas in real-life conditions is a crucial issue in the future. In this way, it is essential to develop validated algorithms for the identification of lymphomas in these databases. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of diagnosis codes in the French health insurance database to identify incident cases of lymphomas according to results of a regional cancer registry, as the gold standard.Between 2010 and 2013, incident lymphomas were identified in hospital data through 2 algorithms of selection. The results of the identification process and characteristics of incident lymphomas cases were compared with data from the Tarn Cancer Registry. Each algorithm's performance was assessed by estimating sensitivity, predictive positive value, specificity (SPE), and negative predictive value.During the period, the registry recorded 476 incident cases of lymphomas, of which 52 were Hodgkin lymphomas and 424 non-Hodgkin lymphomas. For corresponding area and period, algorithm 1 provides a number of incident cases close to the Registry, whereas algorithm 2 overestimated the number of incident cases by approximately 30%. Both algorithms were highly specific (SPE = 99.9%) but moderately sensitive. The comparative analysis illustrates that similar distribution and characteristics are observed in both sources.Given these findings, the use of claims database can be consider as a pertinent and powerful tool to conduct medico-economic or pharmacoepidemiological studies in lymphomas.
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.