Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38090268›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023

Validation and comparison of the coding algorithms to identify people with migraine using Japanese claims data.

Kentaro Yamato, Hiromi Sano, Koichi Hirata, Takeo Nakayama

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2023. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

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

4 authors.

Kentaro YamatoMedical Affairs, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan.
Hiromi SanoMedical Affairs, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan.
Koichi HirataDokkyo Medical University, Tochigi, Japan.
Takeo NakayamaDepartment of Health Informatics, Graduate School of Medicine and School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The study aimed to validate and compare coding algorithms for identifying people with migraine within the Japanese claims database. Methods: This study used the administrative claim database provided by DeSC Healthcare, Inc., that was linked to the results of an online survey administered to adult users of the health app "kencom Results: Of the 21,480 individuals, 691 had migraine according to the ICHD-3 criteria. The 12 algorithms had a sensitivity of 5.4-8.8%, specificity of 98.8-99.6%, PPVs of 19.2-32.5%, and NPVs of 96.9-97.0%. Algorithm 9 (migraine diagnostic records more than once AND at least one prescription record for migraine prophylaxis or triptans in the same month as diagnosis) produced the highest PPV, whereas Algorithm 2 (at least one diagnostic record of migraine or tension-type headache) had the highest sensitivity. Similar trends were observed when using the ID-Migraine or 4-item migraine screener, instead of the ICHD-3 criteria, for case ascertainment. Conclusion: Strict algorithms, such as Algorithm 9, yielded a higher PPV but a lower sensitivity, and such algorithms may be suitable for studies estimating the relative risk. Conversely, algorithms based on a single diagnostic record, such as Algorithm 2, had a higher sensitivity and may be suitable for studies estimating the prevalence/incidence of disease. Our findings will help select a desirable algorithm for migraine studies using a Japanese claim database.

Indexed as

claims datamigrainepredictive valueprimary headachesurvey

Identifiers

PMID38090268
PMCPMC10711110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.