ArticleFrontiers in neurology2023
Validation and comparison of the coding algorithms to identify people with migraine using Japanese claims data.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Understanding Delays and Diagnostic Shifts in Primary Headaches: Evidence from Japanese Health Insurance Claims.Cureus · 2025Article
- Association between seasons with substantial atmospheric pressure change and migraine occurrence: a retrospective cohort study using Japanese claims data and meteorological data.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Seasonal Variations in Triptan Prescription in Japan: A Nationwide Time-Series Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2024Article
- Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- Quality of life and work productivity and activity impairment among online survey respondents with migraine across a range of headache frequency.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Migraine epidemiology, comorbidities and therapeutic landscape: a national population-based study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
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
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.