Cited by 369Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsMedical Coding and Health InformationStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data

Benchimol, Eric I., Manuel, Douglas G., To, Teresa, Griffiths, Anne M., Rabeneck, Linda, Guttmann, Astrid·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Background and objectives Validation of health administrative data for identifying patients with different health states (diseases and conditions) is a research priority, but no guidelines exist for ensuring quality. We created reporting guidelines for studies validating administrative data identification algorithms and used them to assess the quality of reporting of validation studies in the literature.Methods Using Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) criteria as a guide, we created a 40-item checklist of items with which identification accuracy studies should be reported. A systematic review identified studies that validated identification algorithms using administrative data. We used the checklist to assess the quality of reporting.Results In 271 included articles, goals and data sources were well reported but few reported four or more statistical estimates of accuracy (36.9%). In 65.9% of studies reporting positive predictive value (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV), the prevalence of disease in the validation cohort was higher than in the administrative data, potentially falsely elevating predictive values. Subgroup accuracy (53.1%) and 95% confidence intervals for accuracy measures (35.8%) were also underreported.Conclusions The quality of studies validating health states in the administrative data varies, with significant deficits in reporting of markers of diagnostic accuracy, including the appropriate estimation of PPV and NPV. These omissions could lead to misclassification bias and incorrect estimation of incidence and health services utilization rates. Use of a reporting checklist, such as the one created for this study by modifying the STARD criteria, could improve the quality of reporting of validation studies, allowing for accurate application of algorithms, and interpretation of research using health administrative data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.006

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Benchimol, E. I., Manuel, D. G., To, T., Griffiths, A. M., Rabeneck, L., & Guttmann, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Statistics Canada (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Benchimol, Eric I.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
64
Issue
8
Pages
821-829
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979334594
Cited by
368
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American College of Gastroenterology
  • Child and Family Research Institute
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program
  • Hospital for Sick Children
  • Institut pour la Recherche en Santé Publique
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
administrative health data, data validation, identification algorithm, reporting guidelines, reporting quality, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, misclassification bias, disease prevalence, incidence estimation, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Forms and Records Control, Health Services Research, Health Status, Hospital Records, Humans, Quality Control, Guidelines as Topic, International Classification of Diseases, Validation Studies as Topic, Translational Research, Biomedical, Checklist

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