ArticleAdvances in therapy2024
Current Challenges of Using Patient-Level Claims and Electronic Health Record Data for the Longitudinal Evaluation of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Outcomes.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancements from the EVOLVE study for assessing real-world experience with eteplirsen, golodirsen and casimersen for the treatment of DMD.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Trial
- Longitudinal Outcomes Among Patients With Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy: A Canadian Retrospective Population-Based Study.Muscle & nerve · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInsurance claims data and electronic health records (EHRs) have been used to characterize Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in real-world populations. The ability to assess patient-level DMD disease progression within insurance claims or EHR data infrastructures is unknown. Insurance claims and EHR data were comprehensively examined for availability and reliability of DMD outcomes that describe functional status and disease progression at the individual patient level over time.
methodsMarketScan Commercial and Medicaid claims, and EHR-linked Clarivate open claims datasets were examined for data measuring 54 previously identified DMD-relevant outcomes in patients with DMD. Each outcome was assigned to one of five categories: functional and clinical events, clinical measures, biomarkers, functional measures, or patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients were identified using published coding algorithms. Annual 5-year attrition and data availability for each outcome was determined. The ability to distinguish disease severity and identify test results was also considered where applicable.
resultsA total of 1964 (MarketScan Commercial), 2007 (MarketScan Medicaid), and 10,639 (Clarivate) patients were identified. At 5 years, 31.7%, 35.1%, and 59.1% of patients remained in MarketScan Commercial, MarketScan Medicaid, and Clarivate, respectively. Claims were available for five of six functional and clinical events, with 45.5% (MarketScan Commercial), 48.0% (Clarivate), and 48.5% (MarketScan Medicaid) of patients with ≥ 1 claim for the most frequently identified clinical event (cardiomyopathy diagnosis). No data were available to describe frequency of wheelchair use or loss of ambulation. Very limited EHR data (≤ 2% of patients) were available to indicate tests were ordered for clinical measures, biomarkers, or functional assessments. No PRO notes or scores were observed. Data existed for inferring disease severity (e.g., hospitalization for cardiomyopathy); however, it was not apparent whether these events were incident.
conclusionInsurance claims and EHR-linked open claims data are of limited utility for holistically evaluating the progression and burden of DMD in individual patients.
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.