Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30390641›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2018

A systematic review of the clinical application of data-driven population segmentation analysis.

Shi Yan, Yu Heng Kwan, Chuen Seng Tan, Julian Thumboo, Lian Leng Low

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Uncovering Four Types of Care Coordination in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025
    Observational
  9. Article
  10. De-prescribing opioids among Medicaid patients with long-term opioid use.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Shi YanDuke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.
Yu Heng KwanProgram in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, 8 College Road, Singapore, 169857, Singapore.
Chuen Seng TanSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore, 117549, Singapore.
Julian ThumbooRheumatology and Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, 16 College Road, Block 6 Level 9, Singapore, 169854, Singapore.
Lian Leng LowFamily Medicine and Continuing Care, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Bowyer Block, Block A, Level 2, Singapore, 169608, Singapore. low.lian.leng@singhealth.com.sg.ORCID 0000-0003-4228-2862

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData-driven population segmentation analysis utilizes data analytics to divide a heterogeneous population into parsimonious and relatively homogenous groups with similar healthcare characteristics. It is a promising patient-centric analysis that enables effective integrated healthcare interventions specific for each segment. Although widely applied, there is no systematic review on the clinical application of data-driven population segmentation analysis.

methodsWe carried out a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science following PRISMA criteria. We included English peer-reviewed articles that applied data-driven population segmentation analysis on empirical health data. We summarized the clinical settings in which segmentation analysis was applied, compared and contrasted strengths, limitations, and practical considerations of different segmentation methods, and assessed the segmentation outcome of all included studies. The studies were assessed by two independent reviewers.

resultsWe retrieved 14,514 articles and included 216 articles. Data-driven population segmentation analysis was widely used in different clinical contexts. 163 studies examined the general population while 53 focused on specific population with certain diseases or conditions, including psychological, oncological, respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal conditions. Variables used for segmentation in the studies are heterogeneous. Most studies (n = 170) utilized secondary data in community settings (n = 185). The most common segmentation method was latent class/profile/transition/growth analysis (n = 96) followed by K-means cluster analysis (n = 60) and hierarchical analysis (n = 50), each having its advantages, disadvantages, and practical considerations. We also identified key criteria to evaluate a segmentation framework: internal validity, external validity, identifiability/interpretability, substantiality, stability, actionability/accessibility, and parsimony.

conclusionsData-driven population segmentation has been widely applied and holds great potential in managing population health. The evaluations of segmentation outcome require the interplay of data analytics and subject matter expertise. The optimal framework for segmentation requires further research.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisPopulation Health ManagementDelivery of Health CareHumansMedical Record LinkagePopulation HealthReproducibility of ResultsData analyticsHealth policyHealth services researchPopulation healthPopulation segmentationPublic healthSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30390641
PMCPMC6215625

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.