ArticleBMJ open2019
Individual mortality information in the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD): a validation study using a record linkage with a large cancer registry.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recurrence of Cardiovascular Events After an Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients with Multivessel Disease and Associated Healthcare Costs: A German Claims Data Analysis.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Real-World Research on Retinal Diseases Using Health Claims Database: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a German retrospective real-world analysis.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Antithrombotic Treatment Patterns of Patients with Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease in Germany: Evidence from Health Insurance Claims Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Epidemiology and treatment of patients with Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Germany-A claims data study.Allergy · 2022Article
- Use of Biologic Therapies in the Treatment of Asthma - A Comparative Real World Data Analysis on Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs Before and After Therapy Initiation.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2022Article
- Sex Disparities in Long-Term Mortality after Paclitaxel Exposure in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease: A Nationwide Claims-Based Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- [Perspectives for rheumatological health services research at the German Rheumatism Research Center].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2020Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClaims data need to be validated to assess their use for epidemiological research. This study aimed to examine the validity of mortality information in the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD).
designValidation study, secondary data, medical claims.
settingClaims data of two German nationwide acting statutory health insurance providers (SHIs) contributing data for GePaRD; record linkage with epidemiological cancer registry providing individual official mortality information.
participantsAll women insured with the two SHIs whose insurance coverage ended in the period 2006-2013 and who were residents of North Rhine Westphalia. MEASURES: Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the performance of the linkage procedure. Further, we calculated measures of agreement between the official and the GePaRD-based vital status and assessed differences between the official and the GePaRD-based date of death.
resultsOf the 256 111 women of the linkage sample, 25 528 were classified as 'deceased' in GePaRD and the others as 'alive'. Compared with the official data, the GePaRD-based vital status showed a sensitivity of 95.9% and a specificity of 99.4%. The negative predictive value was 99.6% and the positive predictive value 94.3%. The date of death agreed in 96.3% between both data sources.
conclusionsThe vital status recorded in GePaRD was of high accuracy and discrepancies between dates of death in GePaRD and official dates were rare. This underlines the potential of the database for conducting large cohort studies with mortality as the endpoint.
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.