ArticlePloS one2023
Validation study on definition of cause of death in Japanese claims data.
Article in PloS one, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Appropriate definition of childbirth using Japanese administrative database: a cross-sectional cohort validation study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identifying the cause of death is important for the study of end-of-life patients using claims data in Japan. However, the validity of how cause of death is identified using claims data remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to verify the validity of the method used to identify the cause of death based on Japanese claims data. Our study population included patients who died at two institutions between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Claims data consisted of medical data and Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) data, and five definitions developed from disease classification in each dataset were compared with death certificates. Nine causes of death, including cancer, were included in the study. The definition with the highest positive predictive values (PPVs) and sensitivities in this study was the combination of "main disease" in both medical and DPC data. For cancer, these definitions had PPVs and sensitivities of > 90%. For heart disease, these definitions had PPVs of > 50% and sensitivities of > 70%. For cerebrovascular disease, these definitions had PPVs of > 80% and sensitivities of> 70%. For other causes of death, PPVs and sensitivities were < 50% for most definitions. Based on these results, we recommend definitions with a combination of "main disease" in both medical and DPC data for cancer and cerebrovascular disease. However, a clear argument cannot be made for other causes of death because of the small sample size. Therefore, the results of this study can be used with confidence for cancer and cerebrovascular disease but should be used with caution for other causes of death.
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.