ArticleBMJ open2023
Measuring concordance of data sources used for infectious disease research in the USA: a retrospective data analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the generalizability of commercial healthcare claims data.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- What makes an epidemic a disaster: the future of epidemics within the EM-DAT International Disaster Database.BMC public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAs highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers are eager to make use of a wide variety of data sources, both government-sponsored and alternative, to characterise the epidemiology of infectious diseases. The objective of this study is to investigate the strengths and limitations of sources currently being used for research.
designRetrospective descriptive analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Yearly number of national-level and state-level disease-specific case counts and disease clusters for three diseases (measles, mumps and varicella) during a 5-year study period (2013-2017) across four different data sources: Optum (health insurance billing claims data), HealthMap (online news surveillance data), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (official government reports) and National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (government case surveillance data).
resultsOur study demonstrated drastic differences in reported infectious disease incidence across data sources. When compared with the other three sources of interest, Optum data showed substantially higher, implausible standardised case counts for all three diseases. Although there was some concordance in identified state-level case counts and disease clusters, all four sources identified variations in state-level reporting.
conclusionsResearchers should consider data source limitations when attempting to characterise the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Some data sources, such as billing claims data, may be unsuitable for epidemiological research within the infectious disease context.
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.