ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2025
Evaluating the generalizability of commercial healthcare claims data.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Commercial healthcare claims datasets area nonrandom sample of the US population, affecting generalizability. Rigorous comparisons of claims-derived results to ground-truth data that quantify external validity bias are lacking. Our goal is to (1) quantify external validity of commercial healthcare claims data and (2) to evaluate how socioeconomic/demographic factors are related to the bias. We analyzed inpatient discharge records occurring between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 in five states: California, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and compared rates (per person-year) of the 250 most common inpatient procedures between claims and reference data for each target population. We used Merative MarketScan Commercial Database for the claims data and State Inpatient Databases and the US Census as reference. For a target population of all Americans, commercial healthcare claims underestimate the rate of overall inpatient discharges by 23.1%. The extent of bias varied across procedures, with the rates of ~25% of procedures being underestimated by a factor of 2. Socioeconomic factors were significantly associated with the magnitude of bias (${R}^2=69.4\%,$P < .001). When the target population was restricted to commercially insured Americans, the bias decreased substantially (1.4% of procedures were biased by more than factor of 2), but some variation across procedures remained.
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.