Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32917135›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

The effects of different lookback periods on the sociodemographic structure of the study population and on the estimation of incidence rates: analyses with German claims data.

Jelena Epping, Siegfried Geyer, Juliane Tetzlaff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [Development and Internal Validation of Case Definitions for Prevalence Estimation of Microvascular Complications of Diabetes in Routine Data].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Jelena EppingMedical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. epping.jelena@mh-hannover.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1852-5601
Siegfried GeyerMedical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Juliane TetzlaffMedical Sociology Unit, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDefining incident cases has always been a challenging issue for researchers working with routine data. Lookback periods should enable researchers to identify and exclude recurrent cases and increase the accuracy of the incidence estimation. There are different recommendations for lookback periods depending on a disease entity of up to 10 years. Well-known drawbacks of the application of lookback periods are shorter remaining observation period in the dataset or smaller number of cases. The problem of selectivity of the remaining population after introducing lookback periods has not been considered in the literature until now.

methodsThe analyses were performed with pseudonymized claims data of a German statutory health insurance fund with annual case numbers of about 2,1 million insured persons. Proportions of study population excluded due to the application of lookback periods are shown according to age, occupational qualification and income. Myocardial infarction and stroke were used to demonstrate changes in incidence rates after applying lookback periods of up to 5 years.

resultsYounger individuals show substantial dropouts after the application of lookback periods. Furthermore, there are selectivities regarding occupational qualification and income, which cannot be handled by age standardization. Due to selective dropouts of younger individuals, crude incidence rates of myocardial infarction and stroke increase after applying lookback periods. Depending on the income group, age-standardized incidence rates changed differentially, leading to a decrease and possible underestimation of the social gradient after applying lookback periods.

conclusionsSelectivity analyses regarding age and sociodemographic structure should be performed for the study population after applying lookback periods since the selectivity can affect the outcome especially in health care research. The selectivity effects might occur not only in claims data of one health insurance fund, but also in other longitudinal data with left- or right-censoring not covering the whole population. The effects may also apply to health care systems with a mix of public and private health insurance. A trade-off has to be considered between selectivity effects and eliminating recurrent events for more accuracy in the definition of incidence.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionStrokeHumansIncidenceIncomeInsurance, HealthAge structureClaims dataIncidenceLookback periodPre-observationSelectivitySocial gradientSocioeconomic statusWash-out period

Identifiers

PMID32917135
PMCPMC7488660

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.