ArticleBMC health services research2023
Validation of algorithms to identify colorectal cancer patients from administrative claims data of a Japanese hospital.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assigning cancer stage to patients using administrative claims data: an example for colon and rectal cancers.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Article
- Incidence of Colorectal Cancer in Patients Diagnosed With Pyogenic Liver Abscess.JAMA network open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdministrative claims data are a valuable source for clinical studies; however, the use of validated algorithms to identify patients is essential to minimize bias. We evaluated the validity of diagnostic coding algorithms for identifying patients with colorectal cancer from a hospital's administrative claims data.
methodsThis validation study used administrative claims data from a Japanese university hospital between April 2017 and March 2019. We developed diagnostic coding algorithms, basically based on the International Classification of Disease (ICD) 10th codes of C18-20 and Japanese disease codes, to identify patients with colorectal cancer. For random samples of patients identified using our algorithms, case ascertainment was performed using chart review as the gold standard. The positive predictive value (PPV) was calculated to evaluate the accuracy of the algorithms.
resultsOf 249 random samples of patients identified as having colorectal cancer by our coding algorithms, 215 were confirmed cases, yielding a PPV of 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 81.5-90.1%). When the diagnostic codes were restricted to site-specific (right colon, left colon, transverse colon, or rectum) cancer codes, 94 of the 100 random samples were true cases of colorectal cancer. Consequently, the PPV increased to 94.0% (95% CI, 87.2-97.4%).
conclusionOur diagnostic coding algorithms based on ICD-10 codes and Japanese disease codes were highly accurate in detecting patients with colorectal cancer from this hospital's claims data. The exclusive use of site-specific cancer codes further improved the PPV from 86.3 to 94.0%, suggesting their desirability in identifying these patients more precisely.
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.