ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Appropriate definition of childbirth using Japanese administrative database: a cross-sectional cohort validation study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClaims data analyses are useful in clinical research. However, evidence on the validity of claims-based algorithms for identifying childbirth remains limited, particularly in settings where mother–child linkage is unavailable. Therefore, we aimed to develop and validate algorithms to identify childbirth from a claims database.
methodsThe DeSC database, including claims data for approximately 13 million people, was accessed. Eighteen algorithms were designed using combinations of diagnosis-related codes with/without a suspected flag regarding childbirth ([A+susp]/[A]), medical procedure codes [B], and medication codes [C]. We used the parent–child identifier (ID) in the DeSC database as the gold standard, which is assigned based on family relationship information recorded in the insurer-managed registry of insured persons. Parent–child ID links children to an insured parent within the same insurance unit, enabling mother–child linkage. The gold standard for the month and year of childbirth was defined as the child’s month and year of birth among women aged 15–49 years linked by parent–child IDs during the observation period. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), Kappa Index, and Youden Index for each algorithm. To validate algorithms for estimating second childbirth during the observation period, which would become useful in defining childbirth, identification of second childbirth began 2–24 months after the first, given that the average age difference was two years.
resultsA total of 854,626 women were included in this study, of whom 37,934 were aged 15–49 years at the time of parent–child ID assignment and classified as experiencing childbirth during the observation period. The algorithm with the highest value was “[A+susp] or [B] or [C]” (sensitivity: 66.9%, specificity: 98.9%, PPV: 73.7%, NPV: 98.5%, Kappa Index: 0.69, and Youden Index: 0.66). With respect to second childbirth, algorithm “[A+susp] or [B] or [C]” showed that the 11-month difference had the highest Youden Index at 0.57.
conclusionWe developed algorithms based on claims data and established an optimal algorithm for estimating childbirth. This validated algorithm can be used for accurate estimation of childbirth to clarify pregnancy- and childbirth-related diseases in future claims database studies.
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.