Observational studyJournal of gastroenterology2025
Development and validation of a claims-based algorithm to identify incidents and determine the progression phases of gastric cancer cases in Japan.
Observational study in Journal of gastroenterology, 2025. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough health insurance claims data can address questions that clinical trials cannot answer, the uncertainty of disease names and the absence of stage information hinder their use in gastric cancer (GC) research. This study aimed to develop and validate a claims-based algorithm to identify and determine the progression phases of incident GC cases in Japan.
methodsThe gold standard for validation in this retrospective observational study was medical records of patients with incident GC who underwent specific treatments, defined by the claim codes associated with GC treatment. The algorithm was developed and refined using a cohort from two large tertiary care medical centers (April-September 2017 and April-September 2019) and subsequently validated using two independent cohorts: one from different periods (October 2017-March 2019 and October 2019-March 2021) and the other from a different institution (a community hospital). The algorithm identified incident cases based on a combination of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnosis codes for GC (C160-169), and claim codes for specific treatments, classifying them into endoscopic, surgical, and palliative groups. Positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity of incident case identification, and diagnostic accuracy of progression phase determination were evaluated.
resultsThe developed algorithm achieved PPVs of 90.0% (1119/1244) and 95.9% (94/98), sensitivities of 98.0% (1119/1142) and 98.9% (94/95) for incident case identification, with diagnostic accuracies of 94.1% (1053/1119) and 93.6% (88/94) for progression phase determination in the two validation cohorts, respectively.
conclusionsThis validated claims-based algorithm could advance real-world GC research and assist in decision-making regarding GC treatment.
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.