Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A systematic review of validated methods for identifying heart failure using administrative data

Open access
Saczynski, Jane S., Andrade, Susan E., Harrold, Leslie R., Tjia, Jennifer, Cutrona, Sarah L., Dodd, Katherine S., Goldberg, Robert J., Gurwitz, Jerry H.·2012·Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
DOI 10.1002/pds.2313
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: To identify and describe the validity of algorithms used to detect heart failure (HF) using administrative and claims data sources. Methods: A systematic review of PubMed and Iowa Drug Information Service searches of the English language was performed to identify studies published between 1990 and 2010 that evaluated the validity of algorithms for the identification of patients with HF using and claims data. Abstracts and articles were reviewed by two study investigators to determine their relevance on the basis of predetermined criteria. Results: The initial search strategy identified 887 abstracts. Of these, 499 full articles were reviewed and 35 studies included data to evaluate the validity of identifying patients with HF. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were in the acceptable to high range, with most being very high (>90%). Studies that included patients with a primary hospital discharge diagnosis of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, code 428.X had the highest PPV and specificity for HF. PPVs for this algorithm ranged from 84% to 100%. This algorithm, however, may compromise sensitivity because many HF patients are managed on an outpatient basis. The most common ‘gold standard’ for the validation of HF was the Framingham Heart Study criteria. Conclusions: The algorithms and definitions used to identify HF using administrative and claims data perform well, particularly when using a primary hospital discharge diagnosis. Attention should be paid to whether patients who are managed on an outpatient basis are included in the study sample. Including outpatient codes in the described algorithms would increase the sensitivity for identifying new cases of HF. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pds.2313

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Saczynski, J. S., Andrade, S. E., Harrold, L. R., Tjia, J., Cutrona, S. L., Dodd, K. S., Goldberg, R. J., & Gurwitz, J. H.
Venue
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01
Volume
21
Issue
S1
Pages
129-140
ISSN
  • 1053-8569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1557
DOI
10.1002/pds.2313
OpenAlex
W1574179735
Cited by
278
References
44
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of validated methods for identifying heart failure using administrative data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pds.2313
The paper
Saczynski, J. S., Andrade, S. E., Harrold, L. R., Tjia, J., Cutrona, S. L., Dodd, K. S., Goldberg, R. J., & Gurwitz, J. H. (2012). A systematic review of validated methods for identifying heart failure using administrative data. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.2313

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.