ArticleEcho research and practice2024
Validation of administrative claims to identify ultrasound enhancing agent use.
Article in Echo research and practice, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Safety of Ultrasound Enhancing Agents in a Nationwide Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound enhancing agents (UEAs) are an invaluable adjunct to stress and transthoracic echocardiography (STE) to improve left ventricular visualization. Despite multiple single center studies evaluating UEA use, investigation into the rates, sources of variation, and outcomes of UEA use on a national level in the United States (US) has been limited by lack of validation of UEA codes for claims analyses.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study, 2019-2022, using linked multicenter electronic medical record (EMR) data from > 30 health systems linked to all-payor claims data representing > 90% of the US population. Individuals receiving STE in both EMR and claims data on the same day during the study window were included. UEA receipt as identified by presence of a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) or National Drug Code (NDC) for UEA use within 1-day of the index STE event. We evaluated the performance of claims to identify UEA use, using EMR data as the gold standard, stratified by inpatient and outpatient status.
resultsAmongst 54,525 individuals receiving STE in both EMR and claims data, 12,853 (23.6%) had a UEA claim in EMR, 10,461 (19.2%) had a UEA claim in claims, and 9140 (16.8%) had a UEA claim in both within the 1-day window. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive, and negative predictive values for UEA claims were 71.1%, 96.8%, 90.8%, 87.4%. and 91.6% respectively. However, amongst inpatients, the sensitivity of UEA claims was substantially lower (6.8%) compared to outpatients (79.7%).
conclusionsWhile the overall accuracy of claims to identify UEA use was high, there was substantial under-capture of UEA use by claims amongst inpatients. These results call into question published rates of UEA use amongst inpatients in studies using administrative claims, and highlight ongoing need to improve inpatient coding for UEA use.
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.