Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29720153›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Identifying diabetes cases from administrative data: a population-based validation study.

Lorraine L Lipscombe, Jeremiah Hwee, Lauren Webster, Baiju R Shah, Gillian L Booth, Karen Tu

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

148 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Age-Specific Risk of Herpes Zoster in Adults Aged ≥18 Years With Comorbid Conditions-A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United States.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Article
  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. Article

88 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

6 authors.

Lorraine L LipscombeWomen's College Research Institute, Women's College Hospital, 76 Grenville Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 1B1, Canada. Lorraine.Lipscombe@wchospital.ca.
Jeremiah HweeInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Lauren WebsterInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, G1 06, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.
Baiju R ShahDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Suite RFE 3-805, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Gillian L BoothDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Suite RFE 3-805, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
Karen TuInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care data allow for the study and surveillance of chronic diseases such as diabetes. The objective of this study was to identify and validate optimal algorithms for diabetes cases within health care administrative databases for different research purposes, populations, and data sources.

methodsWe linked health care administrative databases from Ontario, Canada to a reference standard of primary care electronic medical records (EMRs). We then identified and calculated the performance characteristics of multiple adult diabetes case definitions, using combinations of data sources and time windows.

resultsThe best algorithm to identify diabetes cases was the presence at any time of one hospitalization or physician claim for diabetes AND either one prescription for an anti-diabetic medication or one physician claim with a diabetes-specific fee code [sensitivity 84.2%, specificity 99.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) 92.5%]. Use of physician claims alone performed almost as well: three physician claims for diabetes within one year was highly specific (sensitivity 79.9%, specificity 99.1%, PPV 91.4%) and one physician claim at any time was highly sensitive (sensitivity 93.6%, specificity 91.9%, PPV 58.5%).

conclusionsThis study identifies validated algorithms to capture diabetes cases within health care administrative databases for a range of purposes, populations and data availability. These findings are useful to study trends and outcomes of diabetes using routinely-collected health care data.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsAdultDatabases, FactualData CollectionDiabetes MellitusFemaleHospitalizationHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMaleManagement Information SystemsOntarioPrimary Health CareSensitivity and Specificityadministrative databasesdiabeteselectronic medical record datavalidation methods

Identifiers

PMID29720153
PMCPMC5932874

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.