ArticlePharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2025
Validity of Diagnostic Codes and Laboratory Tests to Identify Cholangiocarcinoma and Its Subtypes.
Article in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe absence of validated methods to identify cholangiocarcinoma in real-world data has prevented the conduct of pharmacoepidemiologic studies to evaluate determinants of this malignancy and examine the effectiveness of cholangiocarcinoma treatments.
objectiveTo determine the accuracy of International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3)-based algorithms to identify cholangiocarcinoma and its subtype (intrahepatic or extrahepatic) within US Veterans Health Administration (VA) data.
methodsWe identified patients with cholangiocarcinoma ICD-O-3 diagnosis codes from January 2000-December 2019 in VA data. We developed eight algorithms utilizing ICD-O-3 histology codes for cholangiocarcinoma and further used ICD-O-3 topography codes for location (liver, intrahepatic bile duct, extrahepatic bile duct) plus maximum total bilirubin (≥ 3 mg/dL vs. < 3 mg/dL) within ± 45 days of diagnosis to identify cholangiocarcinoma subtype. Up to 80 patients were randomly selected for each algorithm, and their records were reviewed by two hepatologists. The positive predictive values (PPV) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each algorithm were estimated.
resultsAmong 2934 unique patients who met inclusion criteria, 574 were randomly selected for validation. All eight algorithms had high PPV for definite or probable cholangiocarcinoma, ranging from 83.8% (95% CI, 73.8%-91.1%) to 100.0% (95% CI, 95.5%-100.0%). Among three algorithms to identify intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, two had PPV ≥ 80% (range: 88.8% [95% CI, 79.7%-94.7%]-91.3% [95% CI, 82.8%-96.4%]). Among five algorithms to identify extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, four had PPV ≥ 80% (range: 80.0% [95% CI, 69.6%-88.1%]-94.0% [83.5%-98.7%]).
conclusionThese algorithms can be used in future pharmacoepidemiologic studies to evaluate medications associated with intrahepatic or extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
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.