Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38505730›Full record

ReviewAnnals of clinical epidemiology2023

A Review of Studies Using Japanese Nationwide Administrative Claims Databases.

So Sato, Hideo Yasunaga

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of clinical epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of oral third- versus first-/ second-generation cephalosporins for acute uncomplicated cystitis: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

So SatoDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo.
Hideo YasunagaDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdministrative claims databases are increasingly being used worldwide for research purposes. We reviewed original published articles that used one of the four nationwide administrative claims databases in Japan: the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups (NDB), NDB Open Data, the JMDC Claims Database, and the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database.

methodsStudies published from January 2010 to July 2022 using the JMDC and DPC databases, and from January 2013 to July 2022 using the NDB and NDB Open Data were identified using PubMed. The number of original articles was divided into 19 fields. The annual growth rate of the number of studies was calculated using the four databases.

resultsOverall, 1047 studies were included (95 for the NDB, 31 for the NDB Open Data, 222 for the JMDC database, and 699 for the DPC databases). Studies using one of these four databases increased from around 2010, and the average annual growth rate was approximately 41% from 2010 to 2021. DPC database studies had a higher proportion of articles on surgery (19.2%), urology (3.0%), neurosurgery (6.2%), anesthesiology (1.9%), and emergency medicine (14.0%), whereas the NDB and JMDC data had higher proportions of those regarding internal medicine.

conclusionsSince 2010, these four databases have increasingly attracted attention, and the number of studies using them has grown rapidly. Our review suggests that each has unique features, and researchers should understand the database characteristics to operate their studies.

Indexed as

administrative claims databaseDPCJMDCnationwide databaseNDB

Identifiers

PMID38505730
PMCPMC10944998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.