ArticlePediatric transplantation2025
Validating Recipients of Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Using Administrative Healthcare Data.
Article in Pediatric transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validating Recipients of Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Using Administrative Healthcare Data.Pediatric transplantation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth administrative datasets have the potential to provide valuable insights into pediatric solid organ transplantation; however, validation is necessary to ensure their accuracy. This study aimed to assess the validity of administrative data by comparing it to direct transplant records from a major pediatric transplant center in Ontario, Canada (1991-2011).
methodsUsing linked administrative healthcare databases, we conducted a retrospective analysis to evaluate the validity of physician billing claims and hospital diagnostic and procedural codes in identifying pediatric solid organ transplants. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for various algorithms.
resultsDuring the study period, a total of 347 kidney, 250 liver, 200 heart, and 28 lung transplants were performed. The best algorithm for identifying these transplants utilized hospital procedural codes from the Canadian Institute for Health Information Discharge Abstract Database. Compared to transplant center records, these codes demonstrated a sensitivity of 91% (95% CI: 89-93) and PPV of 93% (95% CI: 91-95) when including all organ types, and performed similarly well when evaluating individual organ types.
conclusionThis study is the first to validate administrative data for identifying pediatric solid organ transplant recipients, demonstrating the reliability of procedural codes for population-level health research in this domain.
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.