Validation of a claims-based algorithm identifying eligible study subjects in the ADAPTABLE pragmatic clinical trial
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Validate an algorithm that uses administrative claims data to identify eligible study subjects for the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) pragmatic clinical trial (PCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used medical records from a random sample of patients identified as eligible for the ADAPTABLE trial. The inclusion criteria for ADAPTABLE were a history of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or other coronary artery disease (CAD), plus at least one of several risk-enrichment factors. Exclusion criteria included a history of bleeding disorders or aspirin allergy. Using a claims-based algorithm, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and 10th Edition (ICD-10) codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, we identified patients eligible for the PCT. The primary outcome was the positive predictive value (PPV) of the identification algorithm: the proportion of sampled patients whose medical records confirmed their ADAPTABLE study eligibility. Exact 95% confidence limits for binomial random variables were calculated for the PPV estimates. RESULTS: Of the 185 patients whose medical records were reviewed, 168 (90.8%; 95% Confidence Interval: 85.7%, 94.6%) were confirmed study eligible. This proportion did not differ between patients identified with codes for AMI and patients identified with codes for PCI or CABG. CONCLUSION: The estimated PPV was similar to those in claims-based identification of drug safety surveillance events, indicating that administrative claims data can accurately identify study-eligible subjects for pragmatic clinical trials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Established cardiovascular disease was identified using validated ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes.
“who did not have evidence of established CVD, based on validated International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes during the preindex period16”
From Evaluation of Out-of-Pocket Costs and Treatment Intensification With an SGLT2 Inhibitor or GLP-1 RA in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
The Abstract (Materials and methods) describes an ICD-9-CM/ICD-10 and CPT claims algorithm, and Case identification describes using codes for prior AMI, PCI, or CABG. But the Statistical analysis section validates the positive predictive value of identifying ADAPTABLE-eligible patients; it does not validate using an absence of codes during a preindex period to establish that someone has no CVD. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- [1]Mentz R.J. Hernandez A.F. Berdan L.G. Rorick T. O'Brien E.C. Ibarra J.C. Curtis L.H. Peterson E.D. Good clinical practice guidance and pragmatic clinical trials: balancing the best of both worlds Circulation 133 2016 872 880 26927005 PMC4777975
- [2]Maningat P. Breslow J.L. Needed: pragmatic clinical trials for statin-intolerant patients N. Engl. J. Med. 365 2011 2250 2251 22085320
- [3]Nallamothu B.K. Hayward R.A. Bates E.R. Beyond the randomized clinical trial: the role of effectiveness studies in evaluating cardiovascular therapies Circulation 118 2008 1294 1303 18794402
- [4]Cutrona S.L. Toh S. Iyer A. Foy S. Cavagnaro E. Forrow S. Racoosin J.A. Goldberg R. Gurwitz J.H. Design for validation of acute myocardial infarction cases in Mini-Sentinel Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 21 Suppl 1 2012 274 281 22262617 PMC3679667
- [5]Lo Re V. 3rd Haynes K. Goldberg D. Forde K.A. Carbonari D.M. Leidl K.B. Hennessy S. Reddy K.R. Pawloski P.A. Daniel G.W. Cheetham T.C. Iyer A. Coughlin K.O. Toh S. Boudreau D.M. Selvam N. Cooper W.O. Selvan M.S. VanWormer J.J. Avigan M.I. Houstoun M. Zornberg G.L. Racoosin J.A. Shoaibi A. Validity of diagnostic codes to identify cases of severe acute liver injury in the US Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel Distributed Database Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 22 2013 861 872 23801638 PMC4409951
- [6]Haynes K. Selvam N. Cziraky M.J. Bidirectional data collaborations in distributed research EGEMS (Wash DC) 4 2016 1205 27141518 PMC4827790
- [7]Hernandez A.F. Fleurence R.L. Rothman R.L. The ADAPTABLE trial and PCORnet: shining light on a new research paradigm Ann. Intern. Med. 163 2015 635 636 26301537
- [8]Hall H.M. de Lemos J.A. Enriquez J.R. McGuire D.K. Peng S.A. Alexander K.P. Roe M.T. Desai N. Wiviott S.D. Das S.R. Contemporary patterns of discharge aspirin dosing after acute myocardial infarction in the United States: results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 7 2014 701 707 25116897
- [9]Johnston A. Jones W.S. Hernandez A.F. The ADAPTABLE trial and aspirin dosing in secondary prevention for patients with coronary artery disease Curr. Cardiol. Rep. 18 2016 81 27423939
- [10]Lantos J.D. Wendler D. Septimus E. Wahba S. Madigan R. Bliss G. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials Clin. Trials 12 2015 485 493 26374686 PMC4703320
- [11]Corley D.A. Feigelson H.S. Lieu T.A. McGlynn E.A. Building data infrastructure to evaluate and improve quality: PCORnet J Oncol Pract 11 2015 204 206 25980016 PMC4438109
- [14]Bui C.L. Kaye J.A. Castellsague J. Calingaert B. McQuay L.J. Riera-Guardia N. Saltus C.W. Quinlan S.C. Holick C.N. Wahl P.M. Suzart K. Rothman K.J. Wallander M.A. Perez-Gutthann S. Validation of acute liver injury cases in a population-based cohort study of oral antimicrobial users Curr. Drug Saf. 9 2014 23 28 24111729
- [15]Ammann E.M. Schweizer M.L. Robinson J.G. Eschol J.O. Kafa R. Girotra S. Winiecki S.K. Fuller C.C. Carnahan R.M. Leonard C.E. Haskins C. Garcia C. Chrischilles E.A. Chart validation of inpatient ICD-9-CM administrative diagnosis codes for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) among intravenous immune globulin (IGIV) users in the Sentinel Distributed Database Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 27 2018 398 404 29446185 PMC6410350
- [16]Cutrona S.L. Toh S. Iyer A. Foy S. Daniel G.W. Nair V.P. Ng D. Butler M.G. Boudreau D. Forrow S. Goldberg R. Gore J. McManus D. Racoosin J.A. Gurwitz J.H. Validation of acute myocardial infarction in the Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel program Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 22 2013 40 54 22745038 PMC3601831
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease
Jones, W. S., Mulder, H., Wruck, L. M., Pencina, M. J., Kripalani, S., Muñoz, D., Crenshaw, D. L., Effron, M. B., Re, R. N., Gupta, K., et al. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2102137 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Self-citationLuo, J., Feldman, R., Callaway Kim, K., Rothenberger, S., Korytkowski, M., Hernandez, I., & Gellad, W. F. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17886 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fishman, E., Barron, J., Dinh, J., Jones, W. S., Marshall, A., Merkh, R., Robertson, H., & Haynes, K.
- Affiliations
- Carelon Research (United States) (US)
- Duke Clinical Research Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fishman, Ezra
- Venue
- Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 154-160
- ISSN
- 2451-8654 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6240793
- OpenAlex
- W2899969940
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 3.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- aspirin dosing, administrative claims data, positive predictive value, acute myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, coronary artery disease, ICD-10 codes, CPT codes, pragmatic trials, pharmacovigilance
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