ArticleDrugs - real world outcomes2023
Validation of Algorithms to Identify Bone Metastases Using Administrative Claims Data in a Japanese Hospital.
Article in Drugs - real world outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Initial Treatment Modalities in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Primary Lung Cancer in Japan.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundValidated coding algorithms are essential to generate high-quality, real-world evidence from claims data studies.
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the validity of the algorithms to identify patients with bone metastases using claims data from a Japanese hospital. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study used administrative claims data and electronic medical records at Juntendo University Hospital from April 2017 to March 2019. We developed two candidate claims-based algorithms to detect bone metastases, one based on diagnosis codes alone (Algorithm 1) and the other based on the combination of diagnosis and imaging test codes (Algorithm 2). Of the patients identified by Algorithm 1, 100 patients were randomly sampled. Among these 100 patients, 88 patients met the conditions of Algorithm 2; further, 12 additional patients were randomly sampled from those identified by Algorithm 2, thus obtaining a total of 100 patients for Algorithm 2. They were evaluated for their true diagnosis using the patient chart review as the gold standard. The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated to assess the accuracy of each algorithm.
resultsFor Algorithm 1, 82 patients were analyzed after excluding 18 patients without diagnostic imaging reports. Of these, 69 patients were true positive by chart review, resulting in a PPV of 84.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.5-90.6). For Algorithm 2, 92 patients were analyzed after excluding eight patients whose diagnoses were not judged by chart review. Of these, 76 patients were confirmed positive by chart review, yielding a PPV of 82.6% (95% CI 73.4-89.1).
conclusionBoth claims-based algorithms yielded high PPVs of approximately 85%, with no improvement in PPV by adding imaging test conditions. The diagnosis code-based algorithm is sufficient and valid for identifying bone metastases in this Japanese hospital.
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.