ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2026
Statistical Accuracy of Administratively Recorded Race/Ethnicity in the Military Health System and Race/Ethnicity Ascertained via Questionnaire.
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2026. 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.
- Financial Stressors and Suicide.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Geographic variation in blood transfusion among TRICARE beneficiaries.Transfusion · 2026Article
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
backgroundUnequal disease burdens such as SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and COVID-19 outcomes across race/ethnicity groups have been reported. Misclassification of and missing race and ethnicity (race/ethnicity) data hinder efforts to identify and address health disparities in the US Military Health System (MHS); therefore, we evaluated the statistical accuracy of administratively recorded race/ethnicity data in the MHS Data Repository (MDR) through comparison to self-reported race/ethnicity collected via questionnaire in the Epidemiology, Immunology, and Clinical Characteristics of Emerging Infectious Diseases with Pandemic Potential (EPICC) cohort study.
methodsThe study population included 6009 active duty/retired military (AD/R) and dependent beneficiaries (DB). Considering EPICC study responses the "gold standard," we calculated sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) by race/ethnicity category (non-Hispanic (NH) White, NH Black, Hispanic, NH Asian/Pacific Islander (A/PI), NH American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN), NH Other, missing/unknown).
resultsAmong AD/R, the highest sensitivity and PPV values were for NH White (0.93, 0.96), NH Black (0.90, 0.92), Hispanic (0.80, 0.93), and NH A/PI (0.84, 0.95) and lowest for NH AI/AN (0.62, 0.57) and NH Other (0.09, 0.03). The MDR was missing race/ethnicity data for approximately 63% of DB and sensitivity values, though not PPV, were comparatively much lower: NH White (0.35, 0.88), NH Black (0.55, 0.89), Hispanic (0.13, 1.00), and NH A/PI (0.28, 0.84).
conclusionsOur evaluation of MDR race/ethnicity data revealed misclassification, particularly among some minority groups, and substantial missingness among DB. The potential bias introduced impacts the ability to address health disparities and conduct health research in the MHS, including studies of COVID-19, and needs further examination.
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.