Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39567874›Full record

ArticleBMC infectious diseases2024

Optimizing identification of Lyme disease diagnoses in commercial insurance claims data, United States, 2016-2019.

Courtney C Nawrocki, Austin R Earley, Sarah A Hook, Alison F Hinckley, Kiersten J Kugeler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Lyme Disease and Health Care Costs.JAMA network open · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Courtney C NawrockiDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA. osm9@cdc.gov.
Austin R EarleyDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Sarah A HookDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Alison F HinckleyDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Kiersten J KugelerDivision of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommercial insurance claims data are a stable and consistent source of information on Lyme disease diagnoses in the United States and can contribute to our understanding of overall disease burden and the tracking of epidemiological trends. Algorithms consisting of diagnosis codes and antimicrobial treatment information have been used to identify Lyme disease diagnoses in claims data, but there might be opportunity to improve their accuracy.

methodsWe developed three modified versions of our existing claims-based Lyme disease algorithm; each reflected refined criteria regarding antimicrobials prescribed and/or maximum days between diagnosis code and qualifying prescription claim. We applied each to a large national commercial claims database to identify Lyme disease diagnoses during 2016-2019. We then compared characteristics of Lyme disease diagnoses identified by each of the modified algorithms to those identified by our original algorithm to assess differences from expected trends in demographics, seasonality, and geography.

resultsObserved differences in characteristics of patients with diagnoses identified by the three modified algorithms and our original algorithm were minimal, and differences in age and sex, in particular, were small enough that they could have been due to chance. However, one modified algorithm resulted in proportionally more diagnoses in men, during peak summer months, and in high-incidence jurisdictions, more closely reflecting epidemiological trends documented through public health surveillance. This algorithm limited treatment to only first-line recommended antimicrobials and shortened the timeframe between a Lyme disease diagnosis code and qualifying prescription claim.

conclusionsAs compared to our original algorithm, a modified algorithm that limits the antimicrobials prescribed and shortens the timeframe between a diagnosis code and a qualifying prescription claim might more accurately identify Lyme disease diagnoses when utilizing insurance claims data for supplementary, routine identification and monitoring of Lyme disease diagnoses.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsLyme DiseaseAdolescentAdultAgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildChild, PreschoolDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInfantInsurance Claim ReviewInsurance, HealthMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Bacterial AgentsEpidemiologyLyme diseaseSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID39567874
PMCPMC11580348

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.