ArticlePLOS digital health2024
Impact of observability period on the classification of COPD diagnosis timing among Medicare beneficiaries with lung cancer.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInvestigators often use claims data to estimate the diagnosis timing of chronic conditions. However, misclassification of chronic conditions is common due to variability in healthcare utilization and in claims history across patients.
objectiveWe aimed to quantify the effect of various Medicare fee-for-service continuous enrollment period and lookback period (LBP) on misclassification of COPD and sample size.
methodsA stepwise tutorial to classify COPD, based on its diagnosis timing relative to lung cancer diagnosis using the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results cancer registry linked to Medicare insurance claims. We used 3 approaches varying the LBP and required continuous enrollment (i.e., observability) period between 1 to 5 years. Patients with lung cancer were classified based on their COPD related healthcare utilization into 3 groups: pre-existing COPD (diagnosis at least 3 months before lung cancer diagnosis), concurrent COPD (diagnosis during the -/+ 3months of lung cancer diagnosis), and non-COPD. Among those with 5 years of continuous enrollment, we estimated the sensitivity of the LBP to ascertain COPD diagnosis as the number of patients with pre-existing COPD using a shorter LBP divided by the number of patients with pre-existing COPD using a longer LBP.
resultsExtending the LBP from 1 to 5 years increased prevalence of pre-existing COPD from ~ 36% to 51%, decreased both concurrent COPD from ~ 34% to 23% and non-COPD from ~ 29% to 25%. There was minimal effect of extending the required continuous enrollment period beyond one year across various LBPs. In those with 5 years of continuous enrollment, sensitivity of COPD classification (95% CI) increased with longer LBP from 70.1% (69.7% to 70.4%) for one-year LBP to 100% for 5-years LBP.
conclusionThe length of optimum LBP and continuous enrollment period depends on the context of the research question and the data generating mechanisms. Among Medicare beneficiaries, the best approach to identify diagnosis timing of COPD relative to lung cancer diagnosis is to use all available LBP with at least one year of required continuous enrollment.
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.