Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34276977›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2021

The validity of Dutch health claims data for identifying patients with chronic kidney disease: a hospital-based study in the Netherlands.

Manon J M van Oosten, Richard M Brohet, Susan J J Logtenberg, Anneke Kramer, Lambert D Dikkeschei, Marc H Hemmelder, Henk J G Bilo, Kitty J Jager, Vianda S Stel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Manon J M van OostenDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Richard M BrohetDiabetes Research Center and Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Susan J J LogtenbergDepartment of Internal Medicine, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anneke KramerDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7560-2669
Lambert D DikkescheiDepartment of Clinical Chemistry, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Marc H HemmelderDutch Renal Registry (Renine), Nefrovisie Foundation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Henk J G BiloDiabetes Research Center and Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Kitty J JagerDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vianda S StelDepartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLIsala · NLDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLMedisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth claims data may be an efficient and easily accessible source to study chronic kidney disease (CKD) prevalence in a nationwide population. Our aim was to study Dutch claims data for their ability to identify CKD patients in different subgroups.

methodsFrom a laboratory database, we selected 24 895 adults with at least one creatinine measurement in 2014 ordered at an outpatient clinic. Of these, 15 805 had ≥2 creatinine measurements at least 3 months apart and could be assessed for the chronicity criterion. We estimated the validity of a claim-based diagnosis of CKD and advanced CKD. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)-based definitions for CKD (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m

resultsIn general, sensitivity of claims data was highest in the population with the chronicity criterion as reference group. Sensitivity was higher in advanced CKD patients than in CKD patients {51% [95% confidence interval (CI) 47-56%] versus 27% [95% CI 25-28%]}. Furthermore, sensitivity was higher in young versus elderly patients. In patients with advanced CKD, sensitivity was 72% (95% CI 62-83%) for patients aged 20-59 years and 43% (95% CI 38-49%) in patients ≥75 years. The specificity of CKD and advanced CKD was ≥99%. Positive predictive values ranged from 72% to 99% and negative predictive values ranged from 40% to 100%.

conclusionWhen using health claims data for the estimation of CKD prevalence, it is important to take into account the characteristics of the population at hand. The younger the subjects and the more advanced the stage of CKD the higher the sensitivity of such data. Understanding which patients are selected using health claims data is crucial for a correct interpretation of study results.

Indexed as

CKDGFRhealth claims datahealth claims databasevalidity study

Identifiers

PMID34276977
PMCPMC8280937
OpenAlexW3167112942

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.