Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33354346›Full record

ReviewObesity science & practice2020

Validated methods for identifying individuals with obesity in health care administrative databases: A systematic review.

Sékou Samadoulougou, Leanne Idzerda, Roxane Dault, Alexandre Lebel, Anne-Marie Cloutier, Alain Vanasse

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Obesity science & practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

6 authors.

Sékou SamadoulougouCentre for Research on Planning and Development (CRAD) Laval University Québec Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9250-1264
Leanne IdzerdaCentre for Research on Planning and Development (CRAD) Laval University Québec Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0535-089X
Roxane DaultResearch Group in Health Informatics (GRIIS) Université de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1444-553X
Alexandre LebelCentre for Research on Planning and Development (CRAD) Laval University Québec Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6774-7633
Anne-Marie CloutierResearch Group in Health Informatics (GRIIS) Université de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9682-276X
Alain VanasseDépartement de médecine de famille et médecine d'urgence, Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé Université de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4385-9803

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care administrative databases are increasingly used for health studies and public health surveillance. Cases of individuals with obesity are selected using case-identification methods. However, the validity of these methods is fragmentary and particularly challenging for obesity case identification.

objectiveThe objectives of this systematic review are to (1) determine the case-identification methods used to identify individuals with obesity in health care administrative databases and (2) to summarize the validity of these case-identification methods when compared with a reference standard.

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in six bibliographic databases for the period January 1980 to June 2019 for all studies evaluating obesity case-identification methods compared with a reference standard.

resultsSeventeen articles met the inclusion criteria. International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were the only case-identification method utilized in selected articles. The performance of obesity-identification methods varied widely across studies, with positive predictive value ranging from 19% to 100% while sensitivity ranged from 3% to 92%. The sensitivity of these methods was usually low while the specificity was higher.

conclusionWhen obesity is reported in health care administrative databases, it is usually correctly reported; however, obesity tends to be highly underreported in databases. Therefore, case-identification methods to monitor the prevalence and incidence of obesity within health care administrative databases are not reliable. In contrast, the use of these methods remains relevant for the selection of individuals with obesity for cohort studies, particularly when identifying cohorts of individuals with severe obesity or cohorts where obesity is associated with comorbidities.

Indexed as

algorithmcase‐identificationdatabasesvalidation

Identifiers

PMID33354346
PMCPMC7746972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.