ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2019
Validation of an Algorithm for Claims-based Incidence of Prostate Cancer.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Healthcare Integrated Research Database (HIRD) as a Real-World Data Source for Pharmacoepidemiologic Research.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2025Article
- Cancer and the risk of perioperative arterial ischaemic events.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2024Article
- The prevalence of thrombocytopenia in patients with acute cancer-associated thrombosis.Blood advances · 2023Article
- Validation of Self-Reported Cancer Diagnoses by Respondent Cognitive Status in the U.S. Health and Retirement Study.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023Article
- Algorithm to Identify Incident Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Cases Using Claims Data.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2022Article
- Validation of Self-reported Cancer Diagnoses Using Medicare Diagnostic Claims in the US Health and Retirement Study, 2000-2016.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Data Integration to Improve Real-world Health Outcomes Research for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States: Descriptive and Qualitative Exploration.JMIR cancer · 2021Article
- Testosterone Therapy in Relation to Prostate Cancer in a U.S. Commercial Insurance Claims Database.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
- Identification of cancer patients using claims data from health insurance systems: A real-world comparative study.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProstate cancer is a commonly studied outcome in administrative claims studies, but there is a dearth of validated case identifying algorithms. The long-term development of the disease increases the difficulty in separating prevalent from incident prostate cancer. The purpose of this validation study was to assess the accuracy of a claims algorithm to identify incident prostate cancer among men in commercial and Medicare Advantage US health plans.
methodsWe identified prostate cancer in claims as a prostate cancer diagnosis within 28 days after a prostate biopsy and compared case ascertainment in the claims with the gold standard results from the Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry (GCCR).
resultsWe identified 74,008 men from a large health plan claims database for possible linkage with GCCR. Among the 382 prostate cancer cases identified in claims, 312 were also identified in the GCCR (positive predictive value [PPV] = 82%). Of the registry cases, 91% (95% confidence interval = 88, 94) were correctly identified in claims. Claims and registry diagnosis dates of prostate cancer matched exactly in 254/312 (81%) cases. Nearly half of the false-positive cases also had claims for prostate cancer treatment. Thirteen (43%) false-negative cases were classified as noncases by virtue of having a biopsy and diagnosis >28 days apart as required by the algorithm. Compared to matches, false-negative cases were older men with less aggressive prostate cancer.
conclusionsOur algorithm demonstrated a PPV of 82% with 92% sensitivity in ascertaining incident PC. Administrative health plan claims can be a valuable and accurate source to identify incident prostate cancer cases.
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.