The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bias implications of outcome misclassification in observational studies evaluating association between treatments and all-cause or cardiovascular mortality using administrative claims
Abstract
Background: The bias implications of outcome misclassification arising from imperfect capture of mortality in claims‐based studies are not well understood. Methods and Results: We identified 2 cohorts of patients: (1) type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=8.6 million), and (2) heart failure (n=3.1 million), from Medicare claims (2012–2016). Within the 2 cohorts, mortality was identified from claims using the following approaches: (1) all‐place all‐cause mortality, (2) in‐hospital all‐cause mortality, (3) all‐place cardiovascular mortality (based on diagnosis codes for a major cardiovascular event within 30 days of death date), or (4) in‐hospital cardiovascular mortality, and compared against National Death Index identified mortality. Empirically identified sensitivity and specificity based on observed values in the 2 cohorts were used to conduct Monte Carlo simulations for treatment effect estimation under differential and nondifferential misclassification scenarios. From National Death Index, 1 544 805 deaths (549 996 [35.6%] cardiovascular deaths) in the type 2 diabetes mellitus cohort and 1 175 202 deaths (523 430 [44.5%] cardiovascular deaths) in the heart failure cohort were included. Sensitivity was 99.997% and 99.207% for the all‐place all‐cause mortality approach, whereas it was 27.71% and 33.71% for the in‐hospital all‐cause mortality approach in the type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure cohorts, respectively, with perfect positive predicted values. For all‐place cardiovascular mortality, sensitivity was 52.01% in the type 2 diabetes mellitus cohort and 53.83% in the heart failure cohort with positive predicted values of 49.98% and 54.45%, respectively. Simulations suggested a possibility for substantial bias in treatment effects. Conclusions: Approaches to identify mortality from claims had variable performance compared with the National Death Index. Investigators should anticipate the potential for bias from outcome misclassification when using administrative claims to capture mortality.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The primary study end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure, defined by inpatient primary diagnosis claims with positive predictive value 98%, or all-cause mortality, with sensitivity greater than 99% compared with the National Death Index.
“The primary study end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure (defined by inpatient primary diagnosis claims; positive predictive value = 98%) or all-cause mortality (sensitivity >99% compared with the National Death Index).31,32”
From Semaglutide and Tirzepatide in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (2025) · cites this paper as [31]
Differential or non-differential misclassification of the outcome data could introduce detection bias in NRSI.
“Differential or non-differential misclassification of the outcome data could introduce detection bias in NSRI [15].”
From RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
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
Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes
Zinman, B., Wanner, C., Lachin, J. M., Fitchett, D., Bluhmki, E., Hantel, S., Mattheus, M., Devins, T., Johansen, O. E., Woerle, H. J., et al. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1504720 · Cited by 12,315
Strom, J. B., Faridi, K. F., Butala, N. M., Zhao, Y., Tamez, H., Valsdottir, L. R., Brennan, J. M., Shen, C., Popma, J. J., Kazi, D. S., et al. (2020) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.120.046159 · Cited by 37
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.012 · DOI
- 10.1002/cpt.1633 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2337/dc19-0069 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.0198 · DOI
- 10.1007/s40264-018-0754-z · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32317-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJMoa1409077 · DOI · Paper page
- Suehs B, Bowe A, Davis C, Bunniran S, Uribe C. Mortality ascertainment in a medicare advantage population using health plan enrollment data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017;26(suppl 2):306–307.
- 10.1093/ije/dyi184 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.2010.920 · DOI
- 10.1111/jocs.13379 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
RoBANS 2: A Revised Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions
Seo, H.-J., Kim, S. Y., Lee, Y. J., & Park, J.-E. (2023) · Korean Journal of Family Medicine · doi:10.4082/kjfm.23.0034 · Cited by 128
Semaglutide and Tirzepatide in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction
Krüger, N., Schneeweiss, S., Fuse, K., Matseyko, S., Sreedhara, S. K., Hahn, G., Schunkert, H., & Wang, S. V. (2025) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2025.14092 · Cited by 66
Metadata
- Authors
- Desai, R. J., Levin, R., Lin, K. J., & Patorno, E.
- Affiliations
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School Boston MA
- Venue
- Journal of the American Heart Association
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 17
- ISSN
- 2047-9980
- PMC
- PMC7660765
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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